When the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered its decision in State of UP vs Jai Bir Singh, much of the initial commentary focused on the divided opinions regarding the classic “triple test”. However, it is Justice Joymalya Bagchi’s progressive opinion that offers the most vital blueprint for the future of labour rights in India. At a time when changes to the definition of ‘industry’ under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, exclude workers in “charitable, social or philanthropic” entities, Justice Bagchi’s emphasis on labour laws as “beneficial social legislation” underscores the urgent need to protect vulnerable employees from unequal bargaining power. His forward-looking reasoning provides a lens to understand why cases like that of Geetha—an accountant who fought an 11-year battle against the Chelamattom Devasom Trust—are rapidly becoming harder to win for ordinary workers across the country.The human costGeetha used to work as an accountant for the Chelamattom Devaswom Trust till 2011, when she was fired from her job on allegations relating to discrepancies in the trust’s accounts. The trust manages the centuries-old Chelamattom Sreekrishna Swamy Temple located in Kerala. It was a hard-fought legal battle for Geetha. The case spanned more than 11 years and was fought fiercely by the trust that challenged almost every finding of the labour court by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala.The legal battle came to a close with the courts imposing costs upon the trust for misusing the judicial procedure. The trust had not followed natural justice principles while conducting disciplinary proceedings. Geetha is one of many such workers who toil in establishments that do not resemble commercial ventures either in their structure or their objectives.However, the protections that workers like Geetha enjoyed until the last year may not be available to them anymore. There are two reasons behind it: changes made in the definition of ‘industry’ in the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, and the recently pronounced judgment by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of UP vs Jai Bir Singh.The legendary Bangalore Water Supply (BWS) caseUntil recently, workers at non-commercial entities like temples, schools, universities, NGOs and clubs were protected from arbitrary dismissals under the labour laws in India. It was mainly due to the landmark judgment of Bangalore Water Supply vs A Rajappa (BWS). The majority decision was authored by one of the brightest legal minds of the Indian justice system to have ever lived – Justice V R Krishna Iyer.In BWS, the court laid down a three-pronged test for identifying when an establishment could be considered as an ‘industry’, thus extending to its workers the protections under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948. The test included the following: (a) whether the entity functions round the year or is an isolated adventure (b) whether employment relationships characterise its functioning and (c) does it produce, supply or distribute goods or services that satisfy human wants or wishes, not merely being religious or spiritual in nature.Story continues below this adWhile delivering the judgment, Justice Iyer made it categorically clear that profit motive can never be a guiding factor in the determination of ‘industry’. Even if the entity did not have a commercial character but it indulged in the production, supply or distribution of material goods or services (like making of laddoo prasadam or incense sticks), and the same was done through workers, it was to be treated as an ‘industry’. The nature of the organisation played no role in its classification as an ‘industry’.‘Workers’ of religious trustsThe rationale of BWS has since been used to provide relief to the workers of various religious as well as charitable organisations. However, in recent years, there have been several instances of the courts straying from the dictum of Justice Iyer. The most important example of the same is Indravadan vs Lakshminarayan Dev Trust (Indravadan case), a judgment pronounced by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in January 2026.While the facts were similar, i.e. the worker was an accountant working with a religious trust that managed a temple, the court dismissed the petition, observing that the “trust is a temple and as such, it would not fall within the four corners of the expression ‘industry’.” By doing so, the court seems to have focused on the nature of the enterprise instead of examining it on the basis of the triple test. Although the court seemed to have deviated from BWS, nevertheless it awarded a handsome compensation of Rs 12 lakh to the worker for the arbitrary treatment he was subjected to.Legal Minds | When machine enters the courtroom: A case for regulating AI?Indravadan’s case was not the first time the courts found it difficult to apply the rationale of BWS to temples or temple trusts. In the 2019 judgment of the Delhi High Court in Lawrence Messy vs Diocese of Delhi, the high court held that “in order to qualify industry…an element of res commercium is essential”. This and other similar instances of differing interpretations of BWS led to the case of Jai Bir Singh.Story continues below this adThe Jai Bir Singh judgmentThe nine-judge bench has delivered a judgment that leaves more questions than it answers. For a proper understanding of the judgment, it needs to be assessed from three angles: (a) the correctness of triple test; (b) impact on the presently pending disputes, and (c) its future repercussions.With respect to the triple test, the bench was divided. While four judges (including the present CJI Surya Kant) opined that it was imperfect in its current form and needs to be altered to accommodate the perspective of commercial character, another group of four judges (including Justice B V Nagarathna, who is in line to become the first woman CJI) felt that there was no need to interfere with the triple test. Justice P S Narasimha, however, cautioned against the examination of triple test altogether as the new labour codes are already in effect and, as per his opinion, it will not serve any fruitful purpose.The bench was unanimous over the question of impact of the judgment on pending disputes. It has held that the pending disputes shall not be impacted by the outcome of the present judgment. However, the CJI’s opinion (supported by three other judges) makes a caveat here. It states that any future litigation on a cause of action that arose under the now defunct Industrial Disputes Act shall consider the aspect of commercial character as an important pillar of triple test.On the question of future repercussions of this judgment, the bench is again unanimous, albeit this time even without any caveats. The Supreme Court has said that the outcome of this judgment will not impact the interpretation of the recently enforced labour laws, as the definition of ‘industry’ has been changed under the same.Story continues below this adJustice Joymalya Bagchi – a visionary opinion for the modern eraWhile the opinions of the CJI and Justice Nagarathna have attracted a lot of discussion, not much has been said or written about Justice Bagchi’s opinion. Though Justice Bagchi also concurs with the opinion of Justice Nagarathna that the triple tests never needed any calibration, his reasons are worth highlighting and one which bears the highest significance for the new labour codes.He agrees that labour laws are “beneficial social legislation” and thus must receive a broader purposive interpretation. He further emphasises that the protections under labour laws should be extended to workers of even such establishments that may lack profit/business motive.Behind his seemingly pro-worker stand is his recognition of the “unequal bargaining power” that mires the employment relationships. The sociological realities of a worker inform his point of view, which he expressed in the following words: “[A] workman seldom enters the field of negotiation as an equal. Across the table, often stands an employer larger than him in every conceivable sense, armed with greater resources and bargaining strength.”He categorically rejected the argument that the application of labour laws to temples may disrupt the daily conduct of worship for devotees. The object or motive of employer for religious, spiritual or charitable pursuit can never be regarded as the correct parameter for applying labour laws. It will amount to “unreasonable and hostile classification of employees” being made subject to the outcome of the organisation they are working for.Story continues below this adJustice Bagchi also discusses the importance of casting the protective net of labour laws to a greater number of workers considering the advancement of technology and globalisation, which have produced a more unequal bargaining plane between capital and labour in recent times. Due to a rise of e-commerce businesses and e-aggregator platforms as well as Artificial Intelligence, the organised labour force is being steadfastly dismantled. But, as Justice Bagchi notes, “[t]he displacement or increasing marginalisation of manual labour does not make industrial protection irrelevant. It makes the preservation of an effective remedial framework more imperative.”Legal Minds | A judge’s burden: Why India’s judicial reforms must begin at the foundationOne may feel disappointed that his opinion also does not go the full distance of examining the altered definition of ‘industry’ under the new labour codes. But it surely points towards the same progressive direction as was adopted by the UK Supreme Court when it recognised the employment rights of Uber drivers in a landmark judgment a few years ago.Path forward for non-commercial workersIn the India of 2026, workers like Geetha face far tougher odds against arbitrary actions by non-commercial employers. Recent decisions like Indravadan and the explicit exclusion of charitable and philanthropic entities under the new labour codes severely weaken worker protections. In Jai Bir Singh, while the majority rendered a fragmented decision, it is Justice Joymalya Bagchi’s forward-looking, progressive jurisprudence that provides the crucial framework required to protect vulnerable workers in an AI-driven, rapidly shifting economy.Shantanu Braj Choubey is Assistant Professor (Law), National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi. Sumit Kumar Singh provided the research assistance for this column.Story continues below this adWritten by eminent law professionals, the Legal Minds Column aims to break down complex statutory frameworks into insights, both for members of the fraternity and the general public.For feedback and pitches, write to us at expresslegal@indianexpress.com