On August 20, 2026, nine Supreme Court judges ruled on an old question: should the 1978 test for what counts as an "industry" be reconsidered? That test comes from Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A. Rajappa, i.e. BWSSB. Being classified as an "industry" under this test gives workers access to labour courts and basic protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the time the nine judges heard the case, that Act had already been repealed. The Industrial Relations Code (IRC), 2020, replaced it on November 21, 2025. So the Bench was ruling on a question the law itself had already moved past.

Why the Reference No Longer Required an Answer

Most of the nine judges said so themselves, in different words:

  1. Justices D. Datta and U. Bhuyan held that "the reference requires no answer."
  2. Justice B.V. Nagarathna called the exercise "unnecessary and only academic in nature."
  3. Justice P.S. Narasimha held that an authoritative interpretation had been "compelling" when the Reference began, but had "become unnecessary" once the provision was repealed.
  4. The opinion written by the Chief Justice of India for four judges reformulated the BWSSB test anyway, but called its own reformulation merely "hypothetical."
  5. That reformulation will not apply to any pending case. Since the Act is repealed, no future case can arise under it either.

What the Majority Still Did, Despite Calling the Question Moot

  1. Even though the reformulated test applies to nothing, the Chief Justice's opinion said BWSSB shall no longer be the "sheet anchor" for interpreting the IRC.
  2. Justice Narasimha went further: "industry" under the IRC must be freed of the "bondage of ratio" laid down in BWSSB.
  3. The authors call this a ruling without a ruling. The Bench declined to decide the IRC question directly, yet still shaped how it may be read later.
  4. Justice Nagarathna took a narrower view. She affirmed BWSSB, but said its reasoning carries over to the IRC only as far as the text of both laws matches.
  5. That comparison, she added, means something only in a real case under the IRC — not as an abstract ruling made in advance.
  6. This anxiety about BWSSB is not new. That 2005 case, State of U.P. vs Jai Bir Singh, accused BWSSB's broad test of ignoring "the interests of the employer or owner of the industry."
  7. The Chief Justice's opinion and Justice Narasimha's language now echo the same objection.

Why the Authors Say BWSSB Was Right All Along

  1. Workers and employers do not bargain as equals, and the Constitution itself says so.
  2. Article 42 requires the state to secure "just and humane conditions of work." Article 23 bans "traffic in human beings" and forced labour.
  3. Basic worker protections are not a favour to workers. They are a correction for an imbalance that already exists.
  4. Describing bare protection as "pro-worker," the authors argue, says more about how skewed the starting point already is than about the law being generous.
  5. B.R. Ambedkar warned that liberty from the state's control was another name for "the dictatorship of the private employer."
  6. A freedom to dismiss without explanation is ordinary business; a requirement to explain is called a burden.
  7. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), a 13-judge Bench held that social, economic and political justice is part of the Constitution's basic structure.
  8. That means it cannot simply be legislated away by a newer law.

Conclusion

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, existed to maintain industrial peace by giving workers a forum and a floor of protection. Being excluded from its definition of "industry" meant losing both. Given that purpose, BWSSB's wide test was never a burden — it was the Act doing exactly what it was designed to do. As the IRC replaces the ID Act, the authors argue that the new labour codes still owe the Constitution's promise of social justice. They should not treat the transition as a quiet chance to narrow it.

Mains Angle

GS Paper II — Indian Constitution: significant provisions and basic structure; separation of powers and judicial review; government policies and interventions for the welfare of labour as a vulnerable section. Practice question: "The Supreme Court's treatment of the BWSSB precedent in its 2026 ruling has been read as revealing an institutional anxiety about labour protection rather than a genuine interpretive necessity. Critically examine, with reference to India's constitutional vision of social justice and the shift to the labour codes. (250 words)"