State of Uttar Pradesh v.

Jai Bir Singh

Appeal (Civil) 897 of 2002
-Daanish Dube
20161454
Bench: J. N. Santosh Hegde, J. K.G. Balakrishnan, J. D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. Arun Kumar, J.
B.N. Srikrishna
Facts:
The present case was brought about on the question, if ‘social forestry’ department of state, which was
a welfare scheme undertaken for improvement of the environment, would be covered by the definition
of ’Industry’ under S. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court decided to go into the BWS
case and analyze if the judgement can be followed or not.
Issues:
1. Can social forestry be included in the definition of industry?
2. Can the BWS case be considered as an authoritative precedent?
Holding:
Referred to a larger bench (9 judges). Order passed in 2017 to form the same. No further action taken.
Rationale:
The Supreme Court gave the following reasons for a reference to a larger bench with respect to the
BWS case:
 Composition of judges and their opinions
 Judgement meant to be only temporary till the legislature and executive came up with an
amended definition of ‘Industry’
 J. Krishna Iyer’s majority opinion regards the Industrial Disputes Act solely as a
worker/employee-oriented act
 Huge number of Industrial and labour cases came up
 Understanding of Sovereign functions
 Executive had been ‘inhibited’ because of the BWS case from notifying the amendment
 Safdarjung Hospital and Madras Gymkhana cases were correct in interpreting ‘Industry’
 Hospitals and educational institutions performed services to community and can’t call
strikes or lock outs
Analysis:
The court gave reasons for reference to a larger bench and it still has to be seen if BWS will continue to
be the law of the land or if the legislature will finally enforce a new law defining the word ‘industry’ or
if the court will finally set up a nine judge bench 15 years after the Supreme Court referred the case to a
larger bench of 9 judges and change the interpretation of the word industry.