A Defence of Triple Test | Why Nine-Judge Bench on ‘Industry’ definition should not interfere with Bangalore Water Supply case

The Supreme Court should refrain from interfering with the Bangalore Water Supply’s interpretative approach which, for five decades, has provided a coherent, accessible framework to define industries.
A Defence of Triple Test | Why Nine-Judge Bench on ‘Industry’ definition should not interfere with Bangalore Water Supply case
Published on

RECENT HEARINGS by a  nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’) mark a critical moment for India’s labour jurisprudence, which already is at a point of inflection with the notification of the four Labour Codes in November 2021. 

The bench, which reserved judgment on March 19, 2026, is set to decide whether to uphold or overturn the 'Triple Test' established in the landmark Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa (‘BWSSB’) case of 1978. In BWSSB, the Supreme Court had held that every establishment which carries out a systematic and organised activity with the cooperation of employees for production or distribution of goods or services will be ‘industry’ even if there is no profit motive. The only exception that the Court recognised was the sovereign function exception. 

The hearing by the nine-judge bench is the culmination of a battle spanning two decades. In 2005, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jaibir Singh had held that Justice Krishna Iyer's majority opinion in BWSSB could not be treated as authoritative precedent and called for reconsideration by a larger bench. 

Stakes are very high since the scope of the term, ‘industry’ is pivotal for application of industrial relations law, particularly the provisions on strikes, retrenchment and closure and access to labour adjudication.
Loading content, please wait...
The Leaflet
theleaflet.in