2 months ago
3
A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court reserved judgment connected Thursday (March 19, 2026) connected whether acquisition institutions, hospitals, and sovereign functions of the authorities and its instrumentalities would autumn wrong the explanation of ‘industrial activity’ nether the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi reserved its verdict connected the 3rd and last time of oral arguments.
The question of instrumentality successful the notation earlier the projected nine-judge Bench concerns a 1978 judgement delivered successful Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer arsenic a subordinate of a seven-judge Bench.
The 1978 judgement had expanded the explanation of ‘industry’ nether Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The judgement had introduced a triple trial and included hospitals, acquisition institutions and municipalities arsenic industries.
States similar Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Punjab, represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj and elder advocates Shekhar Naphade and Shadan Farasat, respectively, urged the apex tribunal to relook the seven-judge Bench judgment. Senior advocates similar Indira Jaising, CU Singh, and Gopal Sankaranarayan argued successful favour of keeping the reasoning of the 1978 judgement intact.
Remedy for workmen
Ms. Jaising had submitted that bringing enterprises nether the explanation of manufacture supply workmen with a remedy to ventilate their grievances successful narration to just wages, wellness and safety, occupational safety, information of employment and situation unfair dismissals earlier a judicial authority. “A antiauthoritarian nine governed by the regularisation of instrumentality is dutybound to supply a grievance redressal forum of a judicial quality to each its citizens, wherever their substantive rights tin beryllium ventilated,” she submitted.
The 1978 judgement had expanded the ambit of ‘industry’ to clasp that immoderate systematic activity, whether oregon not done for a nett motive, including charitable and government-run services, were an manufacture if they met the ‘triple test’ parameters. The judgement was designed to payment employees to assertion the presumption and ineligible extortion arsenic concern ‘workers’. The 1978 judgement had lone exempted sovereign functions from the ambit of the explanation of ‘industry’.
