https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157419 The Supreme Court examined whether the definition of "industry" in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as interpreted in Bangalore Water Supply, required reconsideration by a larger Bench. It noted conflicting later decisions on the scope of State welfare and social forestry activities, uncertainty over the reach of sovereign functions, and the fact that the 1982 amended definition had remained unimplemented for years. The Court also observed that Bangalore Water Supply was not wholly unanimous and that its interpretation was described as tentative pending legislative clarification. A larger Bench reference was therefore warranted to reconsider Section 2(j) and, if necessary, Bangalore Water Supply. en-us Thu, 05 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157419 The Supreme Court examined whether the definition of "industry" in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as interpreted in Bangalore Water Supply, required reconsideration by a larger Bench. It noted conflicting later decisions on the scope of State welfare and social forestry activities, uncertainty over the reach of sovereign functions, and the fact that the 1982 amended definition had remained unimplemented for years. The Court also observed that Bangalore Water Supply was not wholly unanimous and that its interpretation was described as tentative pending legislative clarification. A larger Bench reference was therefore warranted to reconsider Section 2(j) and, if necessary, Bangalore Water Supply. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157419