New Delhi, March 14 A nine-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to commence hearings on March 17 on the contentious issue of defining the term "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
According to the Supreme Court's cause list for March 17, the matter will be heard by a nine-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe, and Vipul M Pancholi.
On February 16, the court had formulated the broad issues to be adjudicated by the nine-judge bench.
"Does the test laid down in paragraphs 140 to 144 in the opinion rendered by Justice V R Krishna Iyer in the case of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (of 1978) to determine if an undertaking or enterprise falls within the definition of 'industry' lay down the correct law?
"And does 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The top court had granted further opportunity to the parties to update their written submissions or submit fresh consolidated written submissions by February 28.
It had said the nine-judge bench would commence hearing on March 17 and the same shall be concluded on March 18.
A seven-judge constitutional bench headed by then CJI T S Thakur in 2017 said it was of the opinion that the appeals before it be placed before a bench comprising nine judges keeping in view the "serious and wide-ranging implications" of the issue.
In May 2005, a five-judge bench of the apex court had referred the matter to a larger bench on the interpretation of the definition of the word "industry" in Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It had said the larger bench would have to necessarily go into all legal questions in all dimensions and depth.
"We do not consider it necessary to say anything more and leave it to the larger bench to give such meaning and effect to the definition clause in the present context with the experience of all these years and keeping in view the amended definition of 'industry' kept dormant for long 23 years," the five-judge bench had said in its 2005 order.
"The pressing demands of the competing sectors of employers and employees and the helplessness of legislature and executive in bringing into force the Amendment Act compel us to make this reference," it had said.
The matter had reached the five-judge bench after a three-judge bench had found an "apparent conflict" between the two decisions passed by the apex court in 1996 and 2001 on the issue.
Earlier, a three-judge bench, in its 1996 judgement, had relied on a 1978 seven-judge bench verdict and had held that the social forestry department was covered by the definition of the word "industry".
Later, in 2001, a two-judge bench took a different view on the issue after which the matter was referred to a five-judge bench.