The Supreme Court has upheld its landmark 1978 Bangalore Water Supply judgment. This ruling on 20 August interpreted "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
However, according to the Court, this judgment won't address future disputes. The court will address future disputes under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, ANI reported.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, delivered this decision. The majority ruled 6:3 that reconsidering the 1978 judgment was validly requested. Judges retained the essential framework established through the original "Triple Test" ruling.
The apex court acknowledged certain aspects of the test needed potential refinement. However, it emphasised that the basic framework had proven durable over time. Judges proposed reformulating specific elements without displacing the 1947 Act's governing position.
Crucially, the Supreme Court clarified that pending disputes would continue following Bangalore Water Supply's established framework. This clarification wouldn't disturb any matters already decided previously.
However, future disputes will instead fall under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. SC stressed this new Code requires interpretation based on its own text.
Justice BV Nagarathna disagreed. She was joined by Justices Ujjwal Bhuyan and Deepankar Datta. She argued reopening Section 2(j)'s interpretation wasn't necessary after nearly five decades.
Justice Nagarathna noted a smaller Bench could have addressed resurfacing questions instead. She warned that reopening settled positions might create uncertainty within pending industrial disputes.
Separately, Justice Nagarathna examined whether government departments qualified as "industry" under this definition. She held that such departments could not be excluded simply for performing statutory functions.
According to her, the nature of the activity matters more than who performs it. She also affirmed the "Dominant Nature Test" remained legally correct.
Justices Bhuyan and Datta agreed that the reference shouldn't have been made initially. They preferred to treat Bangalore Water Supply as settled rather than reopen it entirely.
Conversely, Justices Narasimha and Bagchi held that the reference was validly made. They were joined by CJI Kant and three other judges, forming the majority.
These judges agreed that the core Triple Test didn't require complete rejection. Justice Bagchi particularly stressed stare decisis, warning against overruling decades-old established precedent.
The dispute originated in the original 1978 Bangalore Water Supply judgment. That seven-judge Bench, led by then-CJI Beg, settled prior conflicting interpretations. It established the Triple Test alongside the complementary Dominant Nature Test.
This interpretation faced later challenges from Uttar Pradesh and other government bodies. In 2005, concerns emerged regarding a resulting "docket explosion" within labour courts. The matter was eventually referred to progressively larger judicial benches. By 2017, a seven-judge Bench directed final referral to nine judges.