The Supreme Court has declined to reconsider the landmark interpretation of the expression “industry” laid down by its seven-Judge Bench in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, bringing a significant constitutional and labour-law controversy to a close.
The bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the “Triple Test” formulated in the 1978 judgment correctly interprets the expression “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), and found no compelling reason to reopen the settled legal position.
The Nine-Judge Bench specifically rejected the reference seeking reconsideration of Bangalore Water Supply, observing that the long and consistent application of the precedent had transformed what was initially regarded as a judicial formulation into a settled rule of law.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
At the heart of the controversy was the interpretation of Section 2(j) of the ID Act. The provision defined “industry” in broad terms to include business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers, as well as calling, service, employment, handicraft and industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.
The Supreme Court noted that the definition had generated considerable judicial debate for decades because of its potentially wide reach. The central question was whether organised activities carried out by governmental departments, welfare institutions, research organisations and other bodies could fall within the statutory definition even where they were not driven by a conventional profit-making motive.
The seven-Judge Bench in Bangalore Water Supply had adopted an expansive interpretation of “industry” and evolved what became known as the “Triple Test”.
Under the test, an activity would ordinarily fall within the definition where it involved:
- A systematic and organised activity;
- Cooperation between employer and employee; and
- Production or distribution of goods or provision of services aimed at satisfying human wants and wishes.
The Supreme Court’s judgment records that the test deliberately avoided making profit motive a prerequisite. An organisation could therefore potentially qualify as an industry even if it operated in the public, private, joint or other sectors and even if its principal objective was not generation of profit.
The emphasis was consequently placed on the nature and organisation of the activity and, particularly, the structured cooperation between employers and employees.
The present controversy had its roots in conflicting judicial approaches concerning the Social Forestry Department of the State Government.
In Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, a Three-Judge Bench had taken the view that the Social Forestry Department could fall within the definition of “industry” notwithstanding its welfare-oriented character. A later Two-Judge Bench in State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar adopted a more restrictive approach.
This apparent divergence eventually resulted in the matter being referred for consideration by larger Benches. The Supreme Court has now explained that the original three-Judge reference arose from the difficulty in applying the Bangalore Water Supply test to the Social Forestry Department and did not itself purport to overrule or depart from that seven-Judge precedent.
The Court further observed that Bangalore Water Supply had never declared that every Social Forestry Department automatically constitutes an “industry”. Rather, the difficulty concerned how the established test should be applied to the particular character of such governmental activities.
When the matter reached a Five-Judge Bench, the scope of the controversy was considerably widened. What initially concerned the status of the Social Forestry Department was expanded into a broader question concerning whether governmental welfare schemes generally could constitute “industry” under Section 2(j).
The Five-Judge Bench expressed reservations about the breadth of the Bangalore Water Supply approach and ultimately led to the matter being placed before a larger Bench. The Supreme Court’s present judgment traces this procedural history and concludes that the subsequent reference to a Nine-Judge Bench was unnecessary.
The Court noted that Bangalore Water Supply had been followed and relied upon repeatedly over several decades. The judgment records that the precedent had been followed in at least 84 subsequent decisions and that no compelling reason had been demonstrated to unsettle the established legal position.
The Bench also criticised the earlier reasoning that had prompted reconsideration, observing that it had not identified a “manifest error” or a sufficient inter-Bench conflict warranting the reopening of such an established precedent. The Court further noted that no alternative workable formulation had been proposed to replace the Triple Test.
The judgment also considered the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982. Parliament had amended the definition of “industry” and introduced several exclusions and qualifications.
However, the amended definition was never brought into force. The Supreme Court therefore held that the 1982 amendment did not alter the interpretation of Section 2(j) that governed matters under the ID Act.
The Court’s final answer makes it clear that the 1982 amendment had no impact on the interpretation of “industry” under the ID Act during the period in which the original statutory regime remained operational.
The Court also considered the impact of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IR Code).
The judgment records that the IR Code became operational in February 2026, while the ID Act was formally repealed on February 2, 2026. The Court nevertheless held that the subsequent legislative change did not require the historical interpretation of “industry” under the repealed ID Act to be reconsidered.
In particular, the Bench held that the definition of “industry” contained in the 2020 Code would have no impact on the interpretation of the expression under the ID Act for the period during which the ID Act remained applicable.
The ruling has an important practical consequence for pending matters arising from disputes under the ID Act.
The Supreme Court directed that pending references arising out of industrial disputes under the ID Act should proceed to their logical conclusion by applying the interpretation of “industry” that prevailed before the operationalisation of the 2020 Code.
Thus, disputes governed by the repealed ID Act cannot be left unresolved merely because the statutory framework has subsequently changed.
The Court also clarified that its observations would not affect any potential challenge to the validity or operation of the 2020 Code.
Another issue before the Bench concerned the scope of “sovereign functions” and whether governmental welfare activities should automatically fall outside the definition of “industry”.
The Court ultimately found it unnecessary to separately undertake an exhaustive exercise to identify sovereign functions. Since it agreed with the conclusions reached in earlier precedents and affirmed the Bangalore Water Supply interpretation, the question was treated as redundant.
The judgment therefore does not create a new exhaustive definition of sovereign functions for the purposes of the repealed Section 2(j).
The Nine-Judge Bench ultimately concluded that the reference seeking reconsideration of Bangalore Water Supply did not serve any practical, jurisprudential or doctrinal purpose.
The Court stressed that the precedent had governed industrial jurisprudence for nearly half a century and that its uninterrupted application had given it substantial institutional and legal legitimacy. In the Court’s assessment, disturbing that settled position without a compelling public-interest justification would undermine certainty and finality in law.
The Bench accordingly held that the Bangalore Water Supply interpretation of “industry” requires no reconsideration.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Jai Bir Singh batch represents a significant affirmation of judicial certainty in Indian labour law. Rather than replacing the Bangalore Water Supply framework with a narrower test, the Nine-Judge Bench has chosen to preserve the legal position that governed industrial disputes for decades.
The Court’s approach is particularly significant because the underlying statutory framework has since changed. By distinguishing between the interpretation applicable to historical disputes under the ID Act and the legal regime introduced by the IR Code, the judgment seeks to prevent uncertainty in cases that arose when the earlier legislation was still in force.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
