A nine-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench is set to pronounce judgment reconsidering the expansive definition of 'industry' laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A Rajappa (1978). That landmark ruling had broadly defined 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, bringing hospitals, educational institutions, and charitable bodies within its scope. The bench will determine whether this near-five-decade-old interpretation remains correct, with significant consequences for labour law and collective bargaining rights across India.

The term 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 determines which establishments attract the Act's protections — including the right to raise disputes, form unions, and claim reinstatement. In Bangalore Water Supply (1978), a seven-judge bench led by Justice Krishna Iyer adopted the 'triple test': (1) systematic activity, (2) cooperation between employer and employee, and (3) production of goods or services for the community. Applying this, the court included hospitals, universities, and even charitable trusts within 'industry,' dramatically widening labour-law protection.

Subsequent rulings created confusion. In Coir Board v Indira Devi (1998), a five-judge bench doubted Bangalore Water Supply's breadth. Parliament attempted correction through the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, inserting Section 2(j) with a new definition expressly excluding hospitals, research institutions, and sovereign functions — but this amendment was never notified into force, leaving Bangalore Water Supply operative.

The nine-judge bench (larger than the original seven, required to overrule it) was constituted to finally settle whether sovereign and charitable activities qualify as 'industry.' The right tested is the right of workers in quasi-public bodies to the protections of the ID Act. The limitation recognised is that purely sovereign or regal functions of the State fall outside 'industry.' The test applied is whether the activity, stripped of its sovereign character, would in private hands constitute an 'industry' — the 'dominant nature' doctrine. CLAT PG passages frequently reproduce this triple-test reasoning and ask applicants to classify new fact-patterns (a municipal crematorium, a research council) against it.