New Delhi, February 16 The Supreme Court said on Monday that a nine-judge constitutional bench will begin hearing on the contentious issue regarding the definition of the word 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, starting from March 17.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi formulated questions for consideration.
The top court asked parties to submit their written submissions or additional fresh written submissions by February 28, 2026. It clarified that the hearing will be held on March 17 and 18.
"In our considered opinion, we have to adjudicate the following issues: Does the test laid down in paragraphs 140 to 144 by Justice V. Krishna Iyer in the Bangalore water supply case, concerning whether an enterprise falls within the definition of 'industry', establish the correct legal interpretation?
"Does the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act of 1982 not have any legal impact on the term 'industry', and does the industry code have any legal effect?" the bench said.
The top court also said it will consider whether social welfare activities or schemes undertaken by government departments or agencies can be construed as industrial activities under the Industrial Disputes Act.
In 2017, a seven-judge constitutional bench headed by then Chief Justice T.S. Thakur said it was of the opinion that the appeals before it should be heard by a bench comprising nine judges, considering 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 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It had said that the larger bench would necessarily have to consider all legal questions in all dimensions and depth.
"We do not consider it necessary to say anything further and leave it to the larger bench to give such meaning and effect to the definition clause in the present context, taking into account the experience of all these years and keeping in view the amended definition of 'industry', which has been dormant for many years," the five-judge bench had said in its 2005 verdict.
"The pressing demands of the competing sectors of employers and employees, and the helplessness of the legislature and executive in bringing the Amendment Act into force, compel us to make this reference," it had said while referring the issue to a larger bench.
First, 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 judgment, had relied on a 1978 seven-judge bench verdict and had held that the social forestry department was covered by the definition of '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.