Discuss the significance of the 'Triple Test' laid down in *Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa* (1978) for defining 'industry' under Indian labour law. Critically examine the Supreme Court's 2026 verdict on its continuing applicability.

In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978), a seven-judge Bench authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer evolved the Triple Test for "industry" under Section 2(j), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [1]. A nine-judge Bench led by CJI Surya Kant revisited it on 20 August 2026, preserving it for legacy disputes while unsettling its future [2].

Significance of the Triple Test

• It required systematic activity, employer-employee cooperation, and production or distribution of goods and services satisfying human wants — a simple, administrable formula replacing fragmented pre-1978 rulings [1].
• Profit motive was held irrelevant and only sovereign functions excluded, bringing statutory boards, hospitals, clubs and educational institutions within labour protection [1].
• By widening access to conciliation and tribunals, it operationalised the welfare-state vision of Articles 39 and 43, protecting workers of non-commercial public undertakings.

The 2026 verdict: defensible aspects

• The majority held the Triple Test governs all pending disputes under the repealed ID Act, avoiding reopening decades of settled adjudication [2].
• The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (Act 35 of 2020) subsumed the ID Act along with the Trade Unions and Standing Orders Acts [3], and defines "industry" afresh in Section 2(p) with express exclusions for charitable, philanthropic and sovereign activity [4]. Refusing to treat BWSSB as a "sheet anchor" respects legislative supremacy over judicial gloss.

Critical concerns

• The narrow 5:4 split, with Justice B.V. Nagarathna's dissent holding the reference unnecessary, weakens the ruling's persuasive authority [2].
• Discarding a workable test without substituting one risks an interpretive vacuum and fresh litigation for tribunals during the Code's transition [4].
• Continuity of precedent — stare decisis — is diluted when a long-settled test is unsettled without demonstrated unworkability.

The verdict thus balances legislative freshness against jurisprudential continuity, but leaves coverage uncertain. Early authoritative interpretation of Section 2(p), coupled with uniform State rules under the Codes, can secure both worker protection and the Code's promised ease of doing business [5].