Supreme Court Constitution Bench 1978 की ‘Industry’ की परिभाषा की पुनः जाँच – श्रम कानून पर प्रभाव

<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body, whose decisions shape constitutional and statutory interpretation (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> constitution bench is hearing a petition challenging the definition of <span class="key-term" data-definition="‘Industry’ – a term used in labour and industrial statutes to denote any trade, business, manufacture, or service; its scope determines the applicability of labour protections (GS3: Economy)">industry</span> given by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the 1978 judgment of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa – a landmark case that interpreted the term ‘industry’ for the purpose of labour legislation (GS3: Economy)">Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa</span>. The matter is being heard on the second day, with a nine‑judge panel led by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Justice of India — the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, responsible for constituting benches and allocating cases (GS2: Polity)">Chief Justice of India Surya Kant</span> and other senior judges.</p> <h3>Key Developments (Day 2)</h3> <ul> <li>At 4:24 PM, Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Chandrachud – a senior Supreme Court judge who delivered a concurring opinion in the present case (GS2: Polity)">Chandrachud</span> noted that the earlier judgment pronounced on 21 Feb by seven judges under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 145 – a provision of the Indian Constitution empowering the Supreme Court to make rules for its own procedure (GS2: Polity)">Article 145</span> included two fully formulated opinions (by Justice Iyer and Chief Justice Beg) that were in complete concurrence.</li> <li>Advocate Singh, quoting the bench, likened the state's regulatory role to a United Nations‑like umbrella, emphasizing the need for procedural safeguards before imposing punitive measures on employees.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The bench comprises <strong>Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Alok Aradhe, and Justice Vipul Pancholi</strong>.</li> <li>The original definition of <span class="key-term" data-definition="‘Industry’ – as articulated by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, includes any systematic activity of a commercial nature, whether manufacturing or service‑oriented (GS3: Economy)">industry</span> was framed in 1978 and continues to influence labour statutes such as the Industrial Disputes Act.</li> <li>The petition challenges the adequacy of the 1978 definition in the context of modern gig‑economy and digital platforms.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding the judicial interpretation of "industry" is crucial for GS III (Economy) and GS II (Polity) because:</p> <ul> <li>It determin