Overview The Supreme Court constitution bench is hearing arguments on the correctness of the definition of industry given by former Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the 1978 judgment of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa . This is the second day of a multi‑day hearing. Key Developments (Day 2) The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , heard additional submissions from counsel representing the petitioners and the respondents. Justices BV Nagarathna , PS Narasimha , and others participated in the deliberations, indicating the bench’s comprehensive composition. The petitioners reiterated that the 1978 definition is outdated in the context of modern service‑sector enterprises and gig‑economy platforms. The respondents argued that altering the definition could unsettle settled jurisprudence and affect the balance of industrial relations. Important Facts Date of original judgment: 1978. Legal provision under scrutiny: Definition of “industry” in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Bench composition (Day 2): CJ Surya Kant , Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe, Vipul Pancholi. Historical significance: The 1978 decision by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has been cited in numerous subsequent cases dealing with labour rights. UPSC Relevance Understanding the evolving judicial interpretation of “industry” is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) and GS 3 (Economy) because: It affects the scope of labour‑law protections for workers in emerging sectors such as IT, e‑commerce, and gig platforms. Any change in definition can influence industrial relations policy, collective bargaining, and dispute‑resolution mechanisms. The case exemplifies how the Supreme Court’s constitution bench can revisit and potentially reshape statutory meanings, a recurring theme in constitutional law questions. Way Forward While the bench has not delivered its verdict, the following possibilities are likely: A narrowed definition could limit the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to traditional manufacturing units, leaving service‑sector workers outside its protective umbrella. An expanded definition may bring gig‑economy workers under the Act, prompting legislative amendments to address contemporary employment models. Regardless of the outcome, the hearing underscores the need for aspirants to track judicial trends that impact labour legislation and industrial policy. Students should monitor the final judgment and analyse its implications for labour reforms, industrial policy, and the balance between judicial activism and legislative competence.