New Delhi

A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India is set to begin hearing arguments on March 17 on the contentious issue of defining the term “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

According to the apex court’s cause list, the bench will be headed by Surya Kant and include Justices B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi.

On February 16, the court framed broad issues to be examined by the Constitution bench, including whether the test laid down in the landmark 1978 judgment in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A. Rajappa correctly determines if an undertaking or enterprise falls within the definition of “industry”.

The bench also asked whether legislative developments, including the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982—which has not been brought into force—and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, effective from November 21, 2025, have any legal impact on the interpretation of the expression “industry” in the principal Act.

Another key question before the court is whether social welfare activities, schemes or enterprises undertaken by government departments or their instrumentalities can be considered “industrial activities” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The top court had earlier allowed parties to update or submit fresh consolidated written submissions by February 28. The hearing is scheduled to commence on March 17 and conclude on March 18.

The issue has a long judicial history. In 2017, a seven-judge Constitution bench led by former Chief Justice of India T S Thakur recommended that the matter be placed before a nine-judge bench due to its “serious and wide-ranging implications”.

Earlier, in May 2005, a five-judge bench of the apex court had referred the matter to a larger bench for authoritative interpretation of the term “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The five-judge bench had observed that the larger bench would need to examine all legal questions in depth and determine the meaning and effect of the definition in the present context, taking into account decades of experience and the amended definition that has remained dormant for over 23 years.

The matter had reached the five-judge bench after a three-judge bench noted an apparent conflict between two earlier rulings of the Supreme Court delivered in 1996 and 2001 on the issue.

In the 1996 judgment, a three-judge bench relied on the 1978 seven-judge bench ruling to hold that the social forestry department could fall within the definition of “industry”.

READ MORE: Quran and Gita help Jasmine Sultana crack Assam civil services exam

However, in 2001, a two-judge bench expressed a different view, prompting the reference to a five-judge bench and eventually to the nine-judge Constitution bench now set to hear the matter.