Representative image NEW DELHI: Justice Dipankar Datta, part of the CJI Surya Kant-led nine-judge bench testing the correctness of the expansive definition of ‘industry’ that the court settled on in 1978, Tuesday questioned the correctness of the process through which a five-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench in 2005.Justice Datta said, “There is no deliberation in the 2005 judgment as to what compelling circumstances warranted reference to a larger bench. Moreover, was it correct on the part of the five-judge bench to delineate the ratio, that is how many judges in the 7-J bench were in majority of the judgment? Once a judgment is rendered by a bench, irrespective of the division, it is considered as the view of the entire bench. So, was it a valid reference to a larger bench?”The matter was placed before a seven-judge bench, which had referred the issue to nine-judge bench in 2016. Israel Iran WarUS-Israel-Iran War News Live Updates: Iran calls Israeli bombing of fuel depots ‘ecocide’; Trump warns Nato over war fallout’We don’t need help!’ Trump explodes after Nato, other nations refuse to take part in Iran warAudio Details Iran Strike Aftermath: Mojtaba survives ‘Blue Sparrow’ hit; family and commanders killedAttorney general R Venkataramani said he might not support the reasons given by the five-judge bench, but “let that not detain the nine-judge bench now from proceeding with the issue – correctness of ‘industry’ definition in the Bangalore Water Supply judgment of 1978”. The case had an interesting genesis. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board had fined two employees for misconduct and deducted the amount from their salary in 1972. They had filed a petition under the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of the amount. The board said it is a statutory body providing basic amenities to citizens and cannot be categorised as industry. The Industrial Tribunal and HC, however, agreed with the employees. On appeal, the SC on Feb 21, 1978, defined “industry” expansively. Such was the sweep of its ambit that almost everything – temples, universities, social forestry work, hospitals – came to be defined as industry and workers got covered under Industrial Disputes Act.Finding the definition unacceptable, Parliament in 1982 amended the definition of ‘industry’, but it was never notified. In 2020, Parliament enacted the Industrial Relation Code “to consolidate and amend the laws relating to trade unions, conditions of employment in industrial establishment or undertaking, investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for matters concerned therewith or incidental thereto”. It came into force from Nov 21, 2025, and has repealed the Industrial Disputes Act.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos‘Will Maintain Exports Again’: Piyush Goyal Highlights India’s ‘Stable’ Trade Amid West Asia WarSupreme Court Strikes Down Three-Month Rule, Grants Equal Maternity Leave To Adoptive Mothers Too‘Culture Erased’ Claim Sparks Row Over Hindu Temple In Dallas Fort, Targets Indian Community OnlineIndia Urges UN Reform Amid Iran War, Seeks BRICS Unity As Conflict Divides Members’Bapu Wanted To…’: Shivraj Singh Chouhan Launches Scathing Attack On Congress Over VB-G RAM G BillNo Petrol Or Diesel Price Hike For Now Says Centre Amid West Asia Oil Market Volatility Crisis’Bundled Up And Thrown Into Jail’: Sonam Wangchuk In First Remarks After Release From NSA DetentionLok Sabha Revokes Suspension Of 8 Oppn MPs, Warns Against Placards, AI PicturesCentre Confirms All Indian Sailors, Ships Are Safe As LPG Vessels Shivalik, Nanda Devi Dock In IndiaDial PM Modi For Peace: Finland Backs India To Broker Ceasefire, Urges Trump To Call Delhi123PhotostoriesMeet 8 animals with strange noses that are not just for smelling5 reasons why people with strict parents struggle with boundaries in relationships– And how to fix itTom Holland movies to watch before ‘Spider-Man: Brand New Day’: A complete MCU guide5 Mystical facts about Kashi Vishwanath templeFrom Sabyasachi to Gaurav Gupta: Indian designers who quietly dominated the Oscars 2026 red carpet15 die after drinking milk contaminated with ethylene glycol: How to do milk purity test and 5 other calcium-rich foods to consumeThe Great Indian Kapil Show 4 Finale: David Dhawan on Salman Khan asking him to tell Akshay Kumar not to touch him during ‘MSK’ Shoot; Kapil Sharma recalls doing Hans Baliye with wife GinniChaitra Navratri 2026: How to make Makhana Dosa for breakfast at home11 iconic Maharashtrian street foods that define regional flavours5 signs your workout routine is stressing you out instead of helping you123Hot PicksMaternity leaveBengal police reshuffleMatthew Van DykeGold rate todayIncome Tax CalculatorPublic holidays March 2026Bank Holidays MarchTop TrendingGreen card applicantsVisa Bulletin 2026Green Card HoldersUAE missile alertTulsi GabbardChief Ali LarijaniAssembly election dateBig Show rumoursSpurs Kings injury reportEid ul fitr 2026
NEW DELHI: Justice Dipankar Datta, part of the CJI Surya Kant-led nine-judge bench testing the correctness of the expansive definition of ‘industry’ that the court settled on in 1978, Tuesday questioned the correctness of the process through which a five-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench in 2005.Justice Datta said, “There is no deliberation in the 2005 judgment as to what compelling circumstances warranted reference to a larger bench. Moreover, was it correct on the part of the five-judge bench to delineate the ratio, that is how many judges in the 7-J bench were in majority of the judgment? Once a judgment is rendered by a bench, irrespective of the division, it is considered as the view of the entire bench. So, was it a valid reference to a larger bench?”The matter was placed before a seven-judge bench, which had referred the issue to nine-judge bench in 2016. Attorney general R Venkataramani said he might not support the reasons given by the five-judge bench, but “let that not detain the nine-judge bench now from proceeding with the issue – correctness of ‘industry’ definition in the Bangalore Water Supply judgment of 1978”. The case had an interesting genesis. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board had fined two employees for misconduct and deducted the amount from their salary in 1972. They had filed a petition under the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of the amount. The board said it is a statutory body providing basic amenities to citizens and cannot be categorised as industry. The Industrial Tribunal and HC, however, agreed with the employees. On appeal, the SC on Feb 21, 1978, defined “industry” expansively. Such was the sweep of its ambit that almost everything – temples, universities, social forestry work, hospitals – came to be defined as industry and workers got covered under Industrial Disputes Act.Finding the definition unacceptable, Parliament in 1982 amended the definition of ‘industry’, but it was never notified. In 2020, Parliament enacted the Industrial Relation Code “to consolidate and amend the laws relating to trade unions, conditions of employment in industrial establishment or undertaking, investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for matters concerned therewith or incidental thereto”. It came into force from Nov 21, 2025, and has repealed the Industrial Disputes Act.
