Supreme Court Redefines the Meaning of ‘Industry’

Aug. 21, 2026

Why in New?

The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, has delivered a 5:4 verdict on the meaning of ‘industry’ under labour law.
The Court has held that the expansive interpretation laid down in the landmark Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa (1978) will not govern future disputes under the Industrial Relations Code (IRC), 2020.
The ruling marks an important shift in India’s labour jurisprudence, particularly regarding the balance between workers’ rights, industrial peace, State functions and ease of doing business.

What’s in Today’s Article?

The 1978 ‘Bangalore Water Supply’ Verdict:

The 7-judge Bench in 1978 gave an expansive interpretation to “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The ‘triple test’: An activity was treated as an industry if it involved -
- Systematic activity;
- Cooperation between employer and employee; and
- Production or distribution of goods or services to satisfy human wants and wishes.
The Court held that the profit motive was not essential. Consequently, institutions such as hospitals, educational institutions, municipalities, clubs and certain welfare activities could fall within labour-law protection.
It also evolved the Dominant Nature Test for organisations carrying out multiple or integrated activities.
The broad definition enabled workers to seek legal remedies concerning wages, working conditions, unionisation, strikes, collective bargaining and protection against arbitrary dismissal.

Why the Definition Matters?

The classification of an establishment as an “industry” determines whether statutory labour protections and dispute-resolution mechanisms apply to its employees.
The expansive 1978 interpretation, however, generated substantial litigation. A later Constitution Bench referred to the resulting increase in labour litigation as a “docket explosion”.
The issue became particularly contentious after LPG (liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation), as activities earlier performed by the State increasingly shifted to private entities.

Supreme Court’s Majority View:

The majority held that the definition of “industry” under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 must be interpreted on a clean slate.
It should not be “burdened” by the 1978 interpretation of Section 2(j) of the repealed Industrial Disputes Act.
The 1978 judgment therefore remains relevant for legacy disputes pending under the 1947 Act, but it will not serve as the foundation for interpreting the IRC in future cases.
CJI Surya Kant also observed that aspects of the triple test could have been articulated differently to better reflect the statutory provision. The Court’s detailed formulation of the modified test is awaited.

Pending vs Future Cases:

Pending proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Continue to be governed by the Bangalore Water Supply interpretation.
Future disputes under the IRC, 2020: Will be governed by the new statutory framework and the Court’s prospective interpretation.
This distinction prevents retrospective disruption and unequal treatment of workers involved in existing disputes.

Justice Nagarathna’s Dissent:

Justice B.V. Nagarathna, joined by Justices Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, opposed reconsideration of the 1978 judgment.
She argued that the broad definition remains necessary in an economy transformed by privatisation and liberalisation, where workers have increasingly moved from public-sector to private-sector employment.
She maintained that merely because an activity is performed by the State, it does not automatically become a sovereign function.
Government-run social welfare schemes and services may constitute industrial activities depending upon their nature.
She also defended the Dominant Nature Test, arguing that the focus should be on the character of the activity rather than simply on who performs it.
Justice Datta emphasised that institutional credibility requires respect for finality, while Justice Bhuyan supported retaining the established framework.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi: Adopting a nuanced position, he held that the IRC should not be encumbered by the 1978 judgment in future disputes, but disagreed with the majority’s proposed reformulation of the triple test.

Legislative and Policy Background:

The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 attempted to narrow the definition of “industry”, but the relevant provision was never brought into force.
Between 2019 and 2020, Parliament consolidated 29 labour laws into four Labour Codes -
- Code on Wages, 2019
- Industrial Relations Code, 2020
- Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020
- Code on Social Security, 2020
The labour reforms have faced strong opposition from trade unions, reflecting the continuing tension between labour protection and labour-market flexibility.

Way Forward:

The judgment seeks to create a clearer distinction between legacy disputes and the new labour-law regime.
Its ultimate impact will depend on the precise formulation of the new definition of “industry” and whether it succeeds in reducing litigation without weakening workers’ statutory protection.
The larger policy challenge is to achieve a balanced labour regime that protects workers from exploitation while providing enterprises and public institutions with sufficient flexibility to function efficiently.