STATE OF U.P. versus JAI BIR SINGH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 05-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
JAi BIR SINGH 
MAY 5, 2005 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, D.M. 
DHARMADHIKARI, ARUN KUMAR AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 20) {As amended by Industrial 
C Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982}-Definition of "industry"-Jnterpretation 
of-Jn 1978 an expansive meaning was given to the word "industry" with 
certain specified exceptions in the Bangalore Water Supply case-Keeping in 
view such judicial interpretation the word "industry" was consequently 
redefined by the legislature in 1982-But amended definition not brough,t into 
force for the past 23 years-Held: 'There is a requirement of re-considering 
D where the line should be drawn and what limitations should be reasonably 
implied in interpreting the wide words used in S2(j)-Compelling reasons 
more than one for making a reference on the interpretation of definition of 
"industry" in S.2(j), to a larger Bench and for re-consideration by it, if 
necessary, the decision rendered in the case of Bangalor,e Water Supply case. 
E 
On the question whether 'social forestry' department of State, which 
is 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, three Judges Bench of this Court in the case 
of Chief Consetvator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and two 
F Judges Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh 
Narsingh Parmar culled out differently the ratio of the seven Judges Bench 
decision of this Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewarage 
Board v. A. RajapPa. Based on that decision, the Court in the first case 
came to the conclusion that 'Social Forestry Department' is covered by 
the definition of "industry", but in the second case the Court took a 
G different view. The present Bench of five Judges has been constituted on 
a reference made due to apparent conflict between the said two judgments. 
H 
The word "industry" had been given an expansive meaning with 
certain specified exceptions in the judgment of Bangalore Water Supply 
20 
'• 
.. ~·, 
.. 
, 
, 
'4 
STATE OF U.P. v.JAI BIR SINGH 
21 
.1' /--
& Sewarage Board. Keeping in view such judicial interpretation, the word A 
"industry" was redefined but the amended definition has not been brought 
into force for the past 23 years. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present matter is 
as to whether the amended definition, which is now a part of the statute, 
although not enforced, is a relevant piece of subsequent legislation which B 
can be taken aid of to amplify or restrict the ambit of the definition of 
"industry" in S. 2(j) of the.Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it stands in its 
original form. 
Referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. The word "industry" seems to have been redefined under 
the Amendment Act keeping in view the judicial interpretation of the word 
"industry" in the case of Bangalore Water Supply. The Judges delivered 
different opinions in the case of Bangalore Water Supply at different points 
of time and .in some cases without going through or having an opportunity D 
of going through the opinions of other Judges. ·They have themselves 
recorded that the definition clause in the Industrial Disputes Act is so wide 
_.. 
and vague that it is not susceptible to a very definite and precise meaning. 
In the opinions of all of them it is suggested that to avoid reference of the 
vexed question of interpretation, to larger Benches of the Supreme Court 
it would be better that the legislature intervenes and clarifies the legal E 
position by simply amending the definition of ~industry". The legislature 
did respond by amending the definition of "industry" but unfortunately 
23 years were not enough for the legislature to provide Alternative 
Disputes Resolution Forums to the employees of specified categories of 
industries excluded from the amended definition. The legal position thus F 
continues to be unclear and to a large extent uncovered by the decision of 
Bangalore Water Supply case as well. [46-B; 34-B, C, DJ 
-., ,.. 
1.2. The legislature has intervened and amended the definition of 
"industry" in 1982 but for more than 23 years the amended provision not 
having been brought into force, the Ul\amended definition with the same G 
vagueness and lack of precision continues to confuse the courts and the 
/ 
parties. The inaction of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.