‘No justification to reconsider Bangalore Water Supply’, Respondents urge as Supreme Court reserves judgment on “industry” definition
Four decades after Justice Krishna Iyer’s landmark ruling, respondents argued that the ID Act was a “beneficial legislation” that must be read alongside the DPSPs, while appellants countered that welfare could not override statutory text.
Ajitesh Singh
Published on: 20 March 2026, 05:19 pm
YESTERDAY, the Respondents concluded their submissions before the nine-judge Constitution Bench in the batch of cases reconsidering the ambit of the term 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’).
Appearing for the respondents, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising opened arguments on Wednesday by firmly defending the correctness of the landmark ruling in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa (1978), urging the Court not to revisit it and to reject the present reference altogether.
Jaising continued arguing on Thursday, followed by Senior Advocates C.U. Singh, Vijay Hansaria, Jayna Kothari, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan who appeared for the respondents. Senior Advocates J.P. Cama and Parthasarathi Sengupta, appointed as amici curiae by the Bench, also made their submissions. Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade made their rejoinder submissions before the Court reserved the matter. Subsequently, after three days of hearings, the Supreme Court reserved judgment on March 19, 2026.
For background of the case, and the arguments raised by appellants, see here.
‘Three grounds of caution to dismiss the reference’: Jaising
Jaising on Wednesday argued that the very foundation of the reference was flawed, as it incorrectly assumed that there was a conflict between the Chief Conservator of Forests (1995) and Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar (2001), on the definition of ‘industry.’ She submitted that Parmar was confined to its specific factual matrix where the petitioner failed to even assert or establish that his establishment was an industry and that the Court did not lay down any new principle, it simply turned on lack of pleadings and proof.
When the Chief Justice observed that this line of argument might require the Court to re-examine the judgments in depth, Jaising responded that while she would proceed on the assumption that the reference is procedurally valid, she should not be precluded from demonstrating the errors underlying it.
She then identified a second error of mischaracterisation of bench strength in earlier precedents. Jaising underscored that a judgment delivered by seven judges remains a seven-judge bench decision regardless of dissents, and its authority is not diminished by lack of unanimity. Referencing the appellant’s arguments, she argued that treating Safdarjung Hospital v. Kuldip Singh (1970) as a six-judge bench ruling while reducing Bangalore Water Supply to a five-judge decision was plainly incorrect. She maintained that precedential value cannot be diluted through such misreadings, and thus the existing legal position should be upheld.
Turning to legislative developments, Jaising pointed out a third ground for rejecting the reference. She contended that there is now a new Industry Code wherein a new definition of ‘industry’ has been enacted leaving only “pipeline matters” to be governed by the old regime. The Chief Justice, however, cautioned that if the Court were to dispose of the issue on the ground that only pending matters remain, it could still lead to future reinterpretations of Bangalore Water Supply in light of those very provisions. He remarked, "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 has to be answered on merits.”
