New Delhi, March 19 The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it is "definitely not anti-labour" and will take all necessary steps to protect the interests of workers. This statement came after a nine-judge Constitution Bench reserved its verdict on the correctness of the 1978 ruling that interpreted the term "industry" in a broad manner.
The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, will decide on the petitions questioning the interpretation of the landmark verdict, which broadened the definition of "industry" in the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, bringing millions of workers under the protective umbrella of the law.
During the third day of the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani said, "We have consulted with the government. The government is definitely not anti-labour. The welfare of workers will be ensured. We are moving towards a globalized economy, and we need to find a way to manage things."
However, the Attorney General cautioned that departments like the forest department should be classified as an industry, as such an interpretation could negatively impact various governmental activities.
Besides Chief Justice Surya Kant, the bench also comprised Justices B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe, and Vipul M Pancholi.
The judgment, eagerly awaited by the labour and industrial sectors, is expected to have significant consequences on the rights of workers and the applicability of labour protection under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, even as the bench clarified that its ruling will govern pending and existing disputes.
On February 21, 1978, a seven-judge bench delivered a verdict on the definition of the term "industry" while deciding the case of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, expanding the definition and bringing millions of employees in hospitals, educational institutions, clubs, and government welfare departments under the protection of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act of 1947.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, heard the submissions of various lawyers, including Attorney General R Venkataramani, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, and senior advocates Shekhar Naphade, Indira Jaising, C U Singh, and Sanjay Hegde, during the three-day-long hearing.
The bench will examine whether the "triple test" formulated by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the 1978 judgment correctly defines "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Act.
The test broadly states that any systematic activity involving cooperation between employers and employees for the production or distribution of goods and services would qualify as an "industry", thus extending statutory protection to workers in a wide range of sectors.
Senior advocate C U Singh defended the broad definition in the 1978 verdict.
He criticised attempts by state governments to narrow the definition, arguing that the Act itself provides "safety valves" enabling exemptions in the public interest through statutory mechanisms.
"States cannot seek to shift the burden onto the court to dilute worker protections," he said.
On the other hand, lawyers argued for a narrower interpretation, particularly to exclude sovereign functions, charitable activities, and certain government operations.
Senior advocate and amicus curiae J Cama challenged the broad scope of the 1978 ruling, particularly questioning the "triple test" and the inclusion of charitable and non-profit activities within the definition of "industry".
"Social welfare cannot override clear statutory language," he said.
However, the bench raised concerns about the potential exclusion of large sections of workers from the protective framework of labour law if a restrictive interpretation is adopted.
Justice Bagchi highlighted that the core objective of the legislation is the resolution of industrial disputes and the maintenance of industrial peace, rather than favouring either employers or employees.
The bench also expressed concern over situations where workers' access to remedies might depend on whether an activity is carried out by the government directly or through private contractors.
During the hearing, the bench granted relief in an individual case involving a worker from the Punjab irrigation department.
Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench ordered a lump sum compensation of INR 10 lakh to the legal heirs of the deceased employee, directing payment within six weeks.
On February 16, the top court had formulated the broad issues to be adjudicated by the nine-judge bench.
"Whether the test laid down in paragraphs 140 to 144 in the opinion rendered by Justice V R Krishna Iyer in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board's case (of 1978) to determine if an undertaking or enterprise falls within the definition of 'industry' lays down correct law?
"And whether the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (which seemingly did not come into force), and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (with effect from November 21, 2025), have any legal impact on the interpretation of the expression 'industry' as contained in the principal Act," the bench had asked.
It had said one of the issues to be adjudicated by the nine-judge bench would be whether social welfare activities and schemes or other enterprises undertaken by government departments or their instrumentalities can be construed to be "industrial activities" for the purpose of Section 2(j) of the ID Act.