.jpeg)
Surya Kant-Led Bench to Revisit 1978 Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa Verdict
The Supreme Court has constituted a nine-judge Constitution Bench to reconsider the definition of 'industry'. This bench will examine the interpretation given in the 1978 'Bengaluru Water Supply' case. The hearing will take place on March 17 and 18. Let's explore the details.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will examine what the word "industry" means. They will also see if the wide interpretation in the 1978 Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa case is still good. The case will be heard from March 17 to March 18.
The bench is headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Other judges in the bench are Justices B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjwal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe, and Vipul M. Pancholi.
The bench will also determine if the wide interpretation of the word "industry" in Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer’s 1978 judgment should be rethought. In the Bengaluru Water Supply case, a seven-judge bench had given a broad interpretation to the term "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Want to get your story featured as above? click here!
Want to get your story featured as above? click here!
The Court had ruled that any systematic activity carried on by the employer and employees for the production or distribution of goods and services through mutual cooperation could fall within the definition of "industry." This would apply even if the organization did not operate for profit. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant had scheduled the hearing for February 16.
In its order passed on February 16, the three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice raised several key issues. The first issue is whether the criteria set by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the Bengaluru Water Supply case is correct. This criterion determines whether an enterprise falls within the definition of "industry." The bench will also examine whether the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, have any legal impact on the interpretation of the term "industry" as contained in the original Act.
The second issue is whether social welfare activities and schemes of government departments can be considered "industrial activities" for the purposes of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The third issue relates to the functions of the state that fall within the expression "sovereign function." The bench will also decide whether such functions fall outside the scope of Section 2(j) of the Act. This reference arises from a 2002 appeal, which was referred to larger benches in 2005 and 2017.
