Supreme Court 9-judge bench resumes hearing on ‘industry’ definition, examines labour law scope on Day 2
discussion on the ‘industry’ definition is still going on under Supreme Court 9-judge bench.
The Supreme Court’s 9-judge bench resumes Day 2 of hearings on the definition of ‘industry,’ closely examining the scope of labour laws and their impact on workers and organizations across sectors.
The Supreme Court has comprised a 9-judge bench, which will be hearing the case on the scope of definition of the term “industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The hearing on the applicability of labour laws in India will commence on March 17, 2026. It is tomorrow by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Alok Aradhe, Joymalya Bagchi, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma, and Vipul M Pancholi.
The next hearing of Nine-Judge Bench will begin on 17th March 2026 at 10.30 A.M. The same is expected to conclude on 18th March 2026. The Court had ordered "The appellant(s) will be granted, tentatively, four hours of actual Court time to complete their oral submissions. The contesting respondents shall be granted, tentatively, three hours to complete their oral submissions. We will also consider providing one additional hour to the appellant(s) for their rejoinder submissions".
In the Supreme Court live updates industry case, Appeals were referred to a Nine-Judge Bench to consider the rightness of the judgment rendered by a Seven-Judge Bench in the Bangalore Water Supply case, 1978 review vs. A. Rajappa. It is concomitant to even re-consider the understanding of the expression “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In Supreme Court constitution bench hearing, Jai Bir Singh said, "In construing the definition clause and determining its ambit, one has not to lose sight of the fact that in activities like hospitals like hospitals and education, concepts like right of the workers to go on `strike' or the employer's right to `close down' and `lay off' are not contemplated because they are services in which the motto is `service to the community'. If the patients or students are to be left to the mercy of the employer and employees exercising their rights at will, the very purpose of the service activity would be frustrated".
