New Delhi: A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to begin hearing on March 17 on the controversial issue of definition of the word ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
As per the Supreme Court’s list of reasons dated March 17, the matter will be heard by a nine-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices PV Nagaratna, BS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalia Bagchi, Alok Aradhy and Vipul M Pancholi.
On February 16, the court drafted the general issues to be decided by a panel of nine judges.
“Whether the test laid down in paragraphs 140 to 144 in the opinion given by Justice V R Krishna Iyer in the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board case to determine whether an establishment or institution falls within the definition of ‘industry’ lays down the correct law?
“Does the Industrial Disputes Law of 1982 and the Industrial Relations Law of 2020 have any legal impact on the interpretation of the phrase “industry” as stated in the original law?” Ben asked.
It said one of the issues to be decided by the nine-judge bench is whether the activities and schemes of social welfare or other institutions undertaken by government departments or their instrumentalities can be construed as “industrial activities” for the purpose of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Supreme Court gave the parties another opportunity to update their written submissions or file new consolidated written submissions by February 28.
She said the nine-judge panel will begin the hearing on March 17 and will end on March 18.
A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by CJI TS Thakur had in 2017 said that it was of the view that the appeals before it should be placed before a nine-judge bench keeping in mind the “serious and wide-ranging implications” of the case.
In May 2005, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench on the interpretation of the definition of the word “industry” in Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
She said that the larger body must necessarily address all legal issues in all their dimensions and depth.
“We do not consider it necessary to say anything more and leave it to the larger bench to give such meaning and effect to the definition clause in the present context with the experience of all these years, bearing in mind that the revised definition of ‘industry’ has been dormant for 23 long years,” the five-judge bench said in its 2005 order.
She said, “The pressing demands of the competing sectors of employers and employees and the inability of the legislative and executive authorities to bring the amendment law into effect force us to provide this reference.”
The case reached the five-judge panel after the three-judge panel found a “manifest inconsistency” between the Supreme Court’s 1996 and 2001 decisions on the issue.
Earlier, a three-judge bench, in its 1996 ruling, had relied on a 1978 judgment of a seven-judge bench, which had held that social forest management was covered by the definition of the word “industry”.
Later, in 2001, a two-judge bench took a different view on the issue, after which the matter was referred to a five-judge bench.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
