Xplorich
NEW DELHI: Two of the nine-judge SC bench – Justices Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan – Thursday faulted the procedure adopted by a five-judge bench in 2005 to refer adjudication of the correctness of SC’s 1978 ruling giving wider meaning to ‘industry’ to a seven-judge bench and the latter’s reference in 2016 to a nine-judge bench.The case had an interesting genesis. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board had fined two employees for misconduct and deducted the fine amount from their salary in 1972. They had filed a claim petition under Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of the fine amount. The board said it cannot be categorised as industry. The Industrial Tribunal and Karnataka HC agreed with the employees.On an appeal, a seven-judge SC bench on Feb 21, 1978, gave the expansive meaning to industry. Such was the sweep of its ambit that almost everything – temples, universities, colleges, social forestry work and hospitals – came to be defined as industry and those working there got covered as workmen under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Finding the definition unacceptable, Parliament amended the definition of ‘industry’ in 1982, but the amendment was never notified making it a dead legislation. In 2020, Parliament enacted the Industrial Relation Code, which came into force from Nov 21, 2025, repealing Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
