THE NINE JUDGES BENCH of the Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment on March 19, 2026, over the controversy as to the limits of content and contours of industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’).
Though the Court has explicated that any such judicial fencing, if any, arising out of revisiting the decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa (1978) shall only be in regard to earlier cases and, that too, within frontiers of the ID Act, it is open secret that the review verdict shall bear upon the scope and operation of the Industrial Relations Code 2020 (‘IR Code’) which is the successor of the ID Act.
Critics argue that the whole exercise of de novo review is too late and too little, given judicial legal normativism as enunciated in the Bangalore Water Supply case on ‘industry’ has already been incorporated under Section 2(p) of the IR Code with exceptions and exclusions in terms of sovereign function, social and welfare activities including domestic service. Moreover, the Bangalore water Supply judgment recognized legislative deficit and propounded legal theory of industry only to fill it till the matter is legislated.
I find this upcoming judgment of the nine-judge Bench is in the nick of the time for firstly, the structure of Section 2(p) leaves much to discretion of the Executive and further, categories that are locked out of the fold of Section 2(p) as exemptions have already triggered much confabulations as to the rationale and purpose behind such exclusion. Any judicial framework specifying and guiding operation of Section 2(p) shall be wholesome for the future of the Code.
