New Delhi, March 19 -- A Supreme Court constitution bench on Wednesday said that the repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in February this year will not affect how "industry" is defined under the law, as its interpretation will remain central to deciding pending industrial dispute pending across courts. The nine-judge bench which is examining the correctness of a 1978 ruling that gave an expansive definition to the term, said: "There is no question of the repeal (of the Act) coming in our way..Our interpretation of the Act will apply to cases which have arisen under the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA). They are still pending in various courts and we are re-defining that." The court was hearing arguments for and against the 1978 judgment in Bangalore Water Supply case which said that section 2(j) of the 1947 Act should be worker-oriented and should include all industrial activities, including hospitals, universities, clubs and charitable institutions. Hearing trade unions and workers supporting the judgment and urging the court to dismiss the present reference for reconsideration of the 48-year-old ruling, the bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, "If we find that the 1978 judgment laid down the correct law, then this question will not arise. It is only if we find there is something wrong in that judgment, then the doctrine of prospectivity has to be applied. We have applied it in hundreds of cases." Senior advocate CU Singh representing federation of trade unions said that on February 2 this year, the 1947 Act was repealed under section 104 of the Industrial Relations Code, which has come into effect from November 2025. He raised a concern that following the 1978 decision, cases of workmen and labourers were decided as per this 48-year-old judgment. "The consequence of any interpretation by the court at this stage will set the clock back in cases where evidence was led and judgments rendered. The doctrine of prospectivity cannot apply to repealed statutes except revenue statutes." The bench, also comprising justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi, said, "We have taken note that the labourers and workers have got hopes, reliefs and benefits for decades and we should not take it away." Senior advocate Indira Jaising who also argued in favour of sustaining the 1978 judgment said that it is strange that state governments, hospitals, state universities, temples have sought review of the Bangalore Water Supply judgment with no private entity having approached the court. She said that on one hand, the Centre represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani argued against giving a broad definition to the term industry as held in 1978, while the new definition of industry adopts more or less what was laid down by the same judgment. The bench told Jaising that the 1978 judgment was meant to be a "stop gap exposition" as they anticipated a legislative response, which has now come after 50 odd years....