1 week ago

Supreme Court Narrows 1978 Industry Definition Under New Labour Code

Supreme Court Narrows 1978 Industry Definition Under New Labour Code
SC scraps worker-friendly 1978 ‘industry’ precedent for new labour code · thehindubusinessline.com

India’s Supreme Court considered how to decide whether an organization counts as an “industry” under labour law.

A 1978 ruling gave the word a broad meaning and extended protections to workers in places such as hospitals, schools, clubs and some government bodies.

That ruling created a three-part test involving organized work, cooperation between employers and workers, and goods or services for people.

The court said this test will continue to be used for pending cases under the old 1947 law.

However, the 1978 ruling will not automatically decide cases under the newer Industrial Relations Code.

Judges said those new cases must be examined using the new law and their individual facts.

Justice B V Nagarathna and Justices Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan disagreed that the reference asking the court to reconsider the old ruling was maintainable.

The reports differ on whether the overall vote was 6:3 or 5:4.

All nine judges agreed that the issue had become largely academic because the old law had been repealed.

Key facts

1978 precedent
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa broadly interpreted “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Triple test
An activity generally qualifies if it is systematic or organized, involves employer-employee cooperation, and produces or provides goods or services to meet human needs.
Pending cases
Disputes pending under the repealed 1947 Act will continue to be decided using the 1978 interpretation and triple test.
New labour code
The 1978 principles cannot be used as a sweeping framework for interpreting the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Government activities
A government body is not automatically outside the definition of industry; the nature of the activity must be examined.
Dissent
Justices B V Nagarathna, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan opposed the reference’s maintainability; Nagarathna also said the 1978 ruling was correct.
Reported vote
Three accounts report a 6:3 majority, while one account reports a 5:4 majority.

Quotes

Chief Justice Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India

“The majority has held that the reference is valid and we have made it abundantly clear that the majority will apply prospectively and the pending matters (under the ID Act of 1947) will be adjudicated as per the triple test definition under the Bangalore Water Supply (1978 judgement)”
livemint.com
“The future of ‘industry’ in Section 2(p) of IRC is not burdened by the interpretation of 2(j) in the Industrial Disputes Act.”
thehindubusinessline.com

Sources

Related news