What happened
The Supreme Court held that the 1978 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board approach for the term “industry” will not serve as a controlling “sheet anchor” for interpreting Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code (IRC). The Supreme Court also stated that some parts of earlier “triple-test” reasoning can still be relevant, but courts should articulate those parts in a way that better reflects the IRC’s scope, including Section 2(j).
Background and earlier position
Before the IRC began operating, industrial relations jurisprudence relied heavily on the 1978 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board approach to decide whether an activity qualifies as “industry.” Courts commonly discussed the approach through a “triple-test” style framework. The Supreme Court accepted that parts of the earlier framework may retain relevance after the IRC came into force.
What changed now
The Supreme Court’s ruling changes how courts should treat the 1978 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board approach when applying the IRC. No controlling reliance: Courts should not treat the 1978 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board approach as an inflexible controlling guide for interpreting Section 2(p) of the IRC.Continuity with adjustment: Courts may still draw from elements of the earlier “triple-test” framework, but may articulate and apply those elements differently so the analysis aligns with the IRC’s definitions and scope, including Section 2(j).Stability guardrail: The Supreme Court clarified that its discussion should not displace existing legal positions in pending matters or reopen concluded cases.