State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh

Supreme Court of India, 20 August 2026, 9 judges, 2026 INSC 897

A Nine-Judge Bench held the reference valid by 6:3, but no majority reformulated the triple test; Bangalore Water Supply continues to govern pending Section 2(j) disputes, and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is to be read independently.

Facts

The lead appeal raised whether the Social Forestry Department of Uttar Pradesh, a welfare initiative for environmental improvement, is an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A three-Judge Bench noticed a conflict between Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare (three Judges, holding such a department an industry) and State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar (two Judges, taking a different view). A five-Judge Bench in State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 1, gave reasons to reconsider Bangalore Water Supply and sent the matter to a larger Bench; on 02.01.2017 a seven-Judge Bench directed a hearing by nine Judges. Meanwhile the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 came into force on 21.11.2025 and the 1947 Act was repealed. By order dated 16.02.2026 the Court framed the questions. The workmen objected that the reference was not maintainable.

Questions before the Court

Was the reference to the Nine-Judge Bench validly made, and should it be answered on the merits?
Is the triple test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa correct law?
Do the unnotified Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 affect the meaning of 'industry' in Section 2(j)?
Are social welfare activities of Government departments 'industrial activities' under Section 2(j), and which sovereign functions fall outside it?

What the Court held

By 6:3 the reference was held validly made and answerable on the merits (Surya Kant, CJI with three judges, Narasimha, J. and Bagchi, J.). Nagarathna, J. held the reference misconceived and uncalled for, and Datta, J. (with Bhuyan, J.) held it unnecessary and rejected it.
No majority changed the triple test. Surya Kant, CJI and three judges set out a reformulated test requiring a discernible commercial character analogous to trade or business, but called it a hypothesis. Nagarathna, Datta, Bhuyan and Bagchi, JJ. held the Bangalore Water Supply test correct; Narasimha, J. found a merits answer unnecessary after the repeal.
Every opinion accepts that disputes pending under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are to be decided on the triple test in Bangalore Water Supply. The Chief Justice's opinion adds that judgments, awards and settlements that have attained finality are not disturbed.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is to be interpreted on its own text, and Bangalore Water Supply is not to be its sheet anchor (Surya Kant, CJI with three judges, Narasimha, J. and Bagchi, J.). Nagarathna, J. said Section 2(j) may bear on Section 2(p) but not the reverse.
The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 was never brought into force and does not govern the reading of Section 2(j) (the Chief Justice's opinion, Nagarathna, J., Datta and Bhuyan, JJ., and Bagchi, J.).
Four judges (Nagarathna, Datta, Bhuyan and Bagchi, JJ.) held that social welfare activities of Government departments can be industrial activities under Section 2(j), depending on the nature of the activity. The Chief Justice's opinion would test governmental undertakings by the nature of the activity under the reformulated test.

Why it matters

The Nine-Judge Bench did not overrule Bangalore Water Supply. Six judges held the reference valid, but the four-judge reformulation adding a commercial character requirement did not command a majority, while four judges affirmed the triple test. With Section 2(j) repealed, the judgment confines the Bangalore Water Supply ratio to disputes under the repealed Act, and six judges said Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 must be read on its own terms. Datta, J. described the outcome as a split verdict.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“On merits, I hold the triple test laid down by Krishna Iyer, J., in paragraphs 140-144 of Bangalore Water Supply (supra) exhibits a rare felicity in judicial interpretation. Through such triple test, Bangalore Water Supply (supra) while remaining faithful to the text, extended the beneficial object of the law to all employer employee disputes wherever the stakeholders are engaged in an organised systematic activity akin to trade and commerce to produce goods and services for the satisfaction of human needs and did not restrict it merely to activities which are run on commercial lines.”

Joymalya Bagchi, J.Page 486 of the judgment

“It is pertinent to clarify at this juncture that the foregoing is only a hypothesis, and we do not propose, at this stage, to disturb the application of the Triple Test to proceedings that remain pending. To do so would risk creating new and unnecessary distinctions between similarly situated parties, and consequently generate entirely new classes of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.”

Surya Kant, CJI (for four judges)Page 144 of the judgment

“However, on reconsideration of the judgment of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply as above, I hold that the majority judgments of the seven-Judge Bench is good law and therefore, binding. Consequently, I am of the view that the questions referred for the consideration of this Bench would have to be answered in the following manner:”

B.V. Nagarathna, J.Page 306 of the judgment

“For transactions involving industrial disputes prior to 21.11.2025, it is only the repealed Section 2(j), as interpreted in Bangalore Water Supply (supra), that would hold the field. The ratio in Bangalore Water Supply (supra) alone would apply for disposing of all the pending cases in which the interpretation of 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is involved.”

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.Page 326 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Section 2(j), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 2(p), Industrial Relations Code, 2020
Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982

Related judgments

Explains Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)“the ratio in Bangalore Water Supply (supra) would be confined to disputes pending under the repealed law” (page 408)

Case and bench

Parties: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh
Case: Civil Appeal No. 897 / 2002 (with connected civil appeals and special leave petitions)
Decided: 20 August 2026
Bench: Surya Kant, CJI, B.V. Nagarathna, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe, Vipul M. Pancholi
Opinions: Five opinions: Surya Kant, CJI for himself, Satish Chandra Sharma, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.; separate opinions by B.V. Nagarathna, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Dipankar Datta, J. (for himself and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.) and Joymalya Bagchi, J. The reference was held valid 6:3 (Nagarathna, Datta and Bhuyan, JJ. disagreeing); on the merits four judges upheld Bangalore Water Supply, four proposed a hypothetical reformulation, and Narasimha, J. declined to answer the merits.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026
On 20 August 2026 a nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh, revisiting the 'Triple Test' laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978). Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (since replaced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020), the provision examined was:
1. A. Section 2(j), which defines 'industry'
2. B. Section 2(oo), which defines 'retrenchment'
3. C. Section 2(s), which defines 'workman'
4. D. Section 2(k), which defines 'industrial dispute'
Show the answer
A. Section 2(j), which defines 'industry'
The reference concerned the interpretive scope of 'industry' in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Triple Test of Bangalore Water Supply (1978). The nine Judges delivered several separate opinions (2026 INSC 897). The Industrial Disputes Act has been replaced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Question 2, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026
The batch of appeals decided by the nine-Judge Bench in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh on 20 August 2026 arose from the question whether a department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, created as a welfare-oriented initiative, is an 'industry'. Which department was it?
1. A. The Social Forestry Department
2. B. The Public Works Department
3. C. The Minor Irrigation Department
4. D. The Horticulture and Food Processing Department
Show the answer
A. The Social Forestry Department
The opening paragraph of the lead opinion of Surya Kant, CJI frames the inquiry as whether the Social Forestry Department of the State, created as a welfare-oriented initiative aimed at environmental amelioration, falls within 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh

Supreme Court of India, 20 August 2026, 9 judges, 2026 INSC 897

Facts

Questions before the Court

Was the reference to the Nine-Judge Bench validly made, and should it be answered on the merits?
Is the triple test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa correct law?
Do the unnotified Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 affect the meaning of 'industry' in Section 2(j)?
Are social welfare activities of Government departments 'industrial activities' under Section 2(j), and which sovereign functions fall outside it?

What the Court held

By 6:3 the reference was held validly made and answerable on the merits (Surya Kant, CJI with three judges, Narasimha, J. and Bagchi, J.). Nagarathna, J. held the reference misconceived and uncalled for, and Datta, J. (with Bhuyan, J.) held it unnecessary and rejected it.
No majority changed the triple test. Surya Kant, CJI and three judges set out a reformulated test requiring a discernible commercial character analogous to trade or business, but called it a hypothesis. Nagarathna, Datta, Bhuyan and Bagchi, JJ. held the Bangalore Water Supply test correct; Narasimha, J. found a merits answer unnecessary after the repeal.
Every opinion accepts that disputes pending under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are to be decided on the triple test in Bangalore Water Supply. The Chief Justice's opinion adds that judgments, awards and settlements that have attained finality are not disturbed.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is to be interpreted on its own text, and Bangalore Water Supply is not to be its sheet anchor (Surya Kant, CJI with three judges, Narasimha, J. and Bagchi, J.). Nagarathna, J. said Section 2(j) may bear on Section 2(p) but not the reverse.
The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 was never brought into force and does not govern the reading of Section 2(j) (the Chief Justice's opinion, Nagarathna, J., Datta and Bhuyan, JJ., and Bagchi, J.).
Four judges (Nagarathna, Datta, Bhuyan and Bagchi, JJ.) held that social welfare activities of Government departments can be industrial activities under Section 2(j), depending on the nature of the activity. The Chief Justice's opinion would test governmental undertakings by the nature of the activity under the reformulated test.

Why it matters

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“On merits, I hold the triple test laid down by Krishna Iyer, J., in paragraphs 140-144 of Bangalore Water Supply (supra) exhibits a rare felicity in judicial interpretation. Through such triple test, Bangalore Water Supply (supra) while remaining faithful to the text, extended the beneficial object of the law to all employer employee disputes wherever the stakeholders are engaged in an organised systematic activity akin to trade and commerce to produce goods and services for the satisfaction of human needs and did not restrict it merely to activities which are run on commercial lines.”

Joymalya Bagchi, J.Page 486 of the judgment

“It is pertinent to clarify at this juncture that the foregoing is only a hypothesis, and we do not propose, at this stage, to disturb the application of the Triple Test to proceedings that remain pending. To do so would risk creating new and unnecessary distinctions between similarly situated parties, and consequently generate entirely new classes of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.”

Surya Kant, CJI (for four judges)Page 144 of the judgment

“However, on reconsideration of the judgment of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply as above, I hold that the majority judgments of the seven-Judge Bench is good law and therefore, binding. Consequently, I am of the view that the questions referred for the consideration of this Bench would have to be answered in the following manner:”

B.V. Nagarathna, J.Page 306 of the judgment

“For transactions involving industrial disputes prior to 21.11.2025, it is only the repealed Section 2(j), as interpreted in Bangalore Water Supply (supra), that would hold the field. The ratio in Bangalore Water Supply (supra) alone would apply for disposing of all the pending cases in which the interpretation of 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is involved.”

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.Page 326 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Section 2(j), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 2(p), Industrial Relations Code, 2020
Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982

Related judgments

Explains Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)“the ratio in Bangalore Water Supply (supra) would be confined to disputes pending under the repealed law” (page 408)

Case and bench

Parties: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh
Case: Civil Appeal No. 897 / 2002 (with connected civil appeals and special leave petitions)
Decided: 20 August 2026
Bench: Surya Kant, CJI, B.V. Nagarathna, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe, Vipul M. Pancholi
Opinions: Five opinions: Surya Kant, CJI for himself, Satish Chandra Sharma, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.; separate opinions by B.V. Nagarathna, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Dipankar Datta, J. (for himself and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.) and Joymalya Bagchi, J. The reference was held valid 6:3 (Nagarathna, Datta and Bhuyan, JJ. disagreeing); on the merits four judges upheld Bangalore Water Supply, four proposed a hypothetical reformulation, and Narasimha, J. declined to answer the merits.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026
On 20 August 2026 a nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh, revisiting the 'Triple Test' laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978). Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (since replaced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020), the provision examined was:
1. A. Section 2(j), which defines 'industry'
2. B. Section 2(oo), which defines 'retrenchment'
3. C. Section 2(s), which defines 'workman'
4. D. Section 2(k), which defines 'industrial dispute'
Show the answer
A. Section 2(j), which defines 'industry'
The reference concerned the interpretive scope of 'industry' in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Triple Test of Bangalore Water Supply (1978). The nine Judges delivered several separate opinions (2026 INSC 897). The Industrial Disputes Act has been replaced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Question 2, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026
The batch of appeals decided by the nine-Judge Bench in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh on 20 August 2026 arose from the question whether a department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, created as a welfare-oriented initiative, is an 'industry'. Which department was it?
1. A. The Social Forestry Department
2. B. The Public Works Department
3. C. The Minor Irrigation Department
4. D. The Horticulture and Food Processing Department
Show the answer
A. The Social Forestry Department
The opening paragraph of the lead opinion of Surya Kant, CJI frames the inquiry as whether the Social Forestry Department of the State, created as a welfare-oriented initiative aimed at environmental amelioration, falls within 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.