Justice Nagarathna differs, backs broad industry definition

What happened: Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s separate opinion on “industry”

Justice B.V. Nagarathna issued a separate opinion opposing reconsideration of the long-standing 1978 BWSSB judgment on the definition of “industry” used in Indian labour jurisprudence. Justice Nagarathna argued that the meaning of “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 should not be reopened after long continuity.

Justice Nagarathna and other agreeing judges held that the reference challenging the 1978 BWSSB verdict was unwarranted and not maintainable. Justice Nagarathna warned that changing the “industry” definition under Section 2(j) after nearly fifty years would create uncertainty in how courts interpret the term under the Industrial Disputes Act and could disrupt industrial peace.

Justice Nagarathna rejected the idea that state involvement in an activity automatically makes the activity a sovereign function. Justice Nagarathna upheld the Dominant Nature Test for organisations carrying out multiple or integrated activities, where the dominant (main) activity determines whether the organisation qualifies as an industry.

Background and earlier position: “industry” under Section 2(j) and the 1978 BWSSB judgment

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines “industry” in Section 2(j). The 1978 BWSSB judgment has long been treated as a guiding authority for the meaning of “industry” in labour jurisprudence.