State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh, 2026

• The litigation arose from a dispute concerning the Social Forestry Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the question whether such governmental welfare-oriented activity could be treated as an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

• The controversy became significant because earlier Supreme Court decisions had taken different approaches to government forestry/welfare activities. In Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, a three-Judge Bench had treated the relevant Social Forestry activity as falling within the concept of “industry”. In State of Gujarat v. Pratamsinh Narsinh Parmar, a two-Judge Bench reached a different result on the facts and pleadings before it.

• A three-Judge Bench in the original Jai Bir Singh proceedings considered the question sufficiently important to refer it to a larger Bench. The subsequent five-Judge Bench went further and questioned the correctness of the celebrated seven-Judge decision in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, particularly its “triple test” for determining what constitutes an industry. The matter eventually reached the Nine-Judge Bench in 2026.

• By the time the Nine-Judge Bench heard the matter, however, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had been repealed, and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 had come into force. Consequently, the Court had to consider both the historical interpretation of Section 2(j) and the effect of the legislative change.

1. Whether the “triple test” formulated in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa correctly interpreted “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Whether governmental social-welfare activities and schemes could constitute an “industry” under Section 2(j).

3. What governmental activities could be regarded as “sovereign functions” and therefore excluded from Section 2(j).

4. Whether the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 had any effect on the interpretation of “industry”.

5. What effect the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 had on the interpretation of the repealed Section 2(j).

6. Whether the reference seeking reconsideration of Bangalore Water Supply was procedurally valid.

7. Whether the Bangalore Water Supply judgment required reconsideration in light of subsequent judicial decisions, legislative developments and the passage of time. 

The Nine-Judge Bench delivered multiple opinions, resulting in a fractured/split verdict on aspects of the interpretation of “industry”. The judgment nevertheless produced important common consequences for cases arising under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act.

A significant part of the judgment examined the history of the expression “industry”, particularly:

• D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee

• State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha

• Management of Safdarjung Hospital v. Kuldip Singh Sethi

• Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa

• Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare

• State of Gujarat v. Pratamsinh Narsinh Parmar

• Earlier Jai Bir Singh reference decisions.

The Court examined the well-known triple test from Bangalore Water Supply, namely the presence of:

• Systematic activity;

• Cooperation between employer and employee; and

• Production/distribution of goods or provision of services for satisfaction of material human wants.

The principal judgment proposed a more qualified/reformulated formulation, including the requirement that the activity possess a discernible commercial character analogous to trade or business. It also retained the dominant nature test for undertakings having mixed activities.

However, the separate opinions did not uniformly agree with this reformulation. Justice B.V. Nagarathna expressly concluded that Bangalore Water Supply did not require reconsideration, while Justices Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan likewise held that the triple test did not warrant being displaced. Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed with the continuation of the triple test but differed from the Chief Justice on its reformulation.

• The case represents one of the Supreme Court's most extensive examinations of the meaning of “industry” in Indian labour law. Section 2(j) had generated decades of litigation because its language was exceptionally broad and potentially covered governmental, charitable, educational, professional and welfare-oriented activities.

• The 1978 Bangalore Water Supply judgment had developed the famous triple test. The 2026 Bench reconsidered whether that test should continue unchanged. Some opinions considered the existing formulation sufficiently broad and settled, while the principal judgment sought greater qualification and contextual limits.

• The judgment maintains an important labour-law principle that absence of profit motive does not automatically take an organisation outside the definition of industry. The focus is substantially on the nature and organisation of the activity and the employer–employee relationship.

• The case is particularly significant for government departments and welfare schemes. The mere fact that an activity is performed by the Government or has a welfare objective does not, by itself, settle the question whether it is an industry under the old Section 2(j). The character of the actual activity and the applicable legal tests remain relevant.

• The judgment revisited the distinction between genuinely sovereign functions and governmental activities that are essentially economic, service-oriented or welfare-related. The principal opinion retained a distinction between sovereign functions and welfare/economic activities of government bodies.

• One of the most practically important aspects is that the dispute concerning Section 2(j) arose under an old statutory regime. Since the Industrial Disputes Act was repealed and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 introduced a new definition in Section 2(p), the Court emphasised that the new provision must be interpreted according to its own statutory language and context.

• The Court was concerned that retrospectively changing the applicable test could potentially remove long-pending industrial disputes from the labour-law framework and force parties toward ordinary civil remedies. This consideration strongly influenced the approach of the Judges who favoured continuing the Bangalore Water Supply framework for pending matters under the repealed Act.

• The judgment is particularly important for understanding stare decisis, larger Bench references, Article 141, and the circumstances in which a long-standing Supreme Court precedent can be reconsidered. It also demonstrates that a Nine-Judge Bench may produce different opinions on the precise formulation while still producing common practical consequences for pending litigation.