The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will answer the reference questioning the correctness of the court's seven-judge Bench judgment in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (BWSSB) v. R Rajappa & Others, which was pronounced in 1978.
The top court had then ruled that the term ‘industry’ has to be given a wide interpretation. The case revolving around the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, at present is being heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi.
On Wednesday, the question relating to the maintainability of the reference arose in view of the repeal of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which has been replaced by Industrial Relations Code, 2020. "Your argument is too preemptory in nature to say that we should not comment on 2025-2020 Act because you are planning to challenge. What will happen if we close the matter by saying that only limited pipeline matters are left and therefore nothing is required to be done? Tomorrow Bangalore Water Supply will be followed in interpreting that very provision. Therefore, whatever reference is there, it is has to be answered on merits," CJI Kant said.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who argued in support of Bangalore Water Supply decision, earlier said any judgment on the reference will affect both sides involved in industrial disputes. "You will have complaints coming from the workers or you will have complaints coming from employers," Jaising said, who submitted that the 1978 verdict did not require reconsideration and that the reference should be rejected.
"The reference is based on incorrect information as to whether there is a conflict between judgments of the Court," Jaising said. However, CJI Kant said the court will not go into the correctness of the reference itself, but will instead decide the matter on merits with regard to the correctness of the 1978 verdict.
"Straight, we will go into the issues involved. We are not going to hold that the reference was defective because then we will go deeper into it that how even sixth-bench could have been doubted at that time," CJI said. Jaising said she would be arguing in the alternative too, on the assumption that the reference has been properly made.
CJI Kant said it will confine to the interpretation of what the definition was there at the time of Bangalore Water Supply decision. Justice Bagchi said the ratio in Bangalore Water Supply was given anticipating parliamentary action to fill in the legislative gap. Justice Bagchi also said the court can add a clarification to its decision.
"The court is capable of adding a caveat that our interpretation is with reference to the repealed law and not with reference to the 2025 Code," he said. During the hearing, Justice Datta observed that one cannot read industry without understanding what an industrial dispute is.
"Unfortunately, yesterday none of the senior counsel referred us to any provision of the Act. We are interpreting the Act. You have to first understand what an industrial dispute is. You are reading industry, workmen, but without understanding what is the scope of industrial dispute," the judge said.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the State of Karnataka, submitted that life and commerce have changed in these years. He highlighted the difference between the decisions in Management of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi vs. Kuldip Singh Sethi and Bangalore Water Works cases. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the State of Punjab, urged the Court to consider restricting the definition of 'industry'.
Follow us
