Since 1978 this case law has been applied throughout the country. But on March 4, 1998, a two-judge bench of Justices Sujata Manohar and D.P. Wadhwa had sought a reconsideration of the 1978 judgment in the matter of Coir Board, Ernakulam, Cochin vs Indira Devi. On November 10, 1998, the three-judge bench of Chief Justice A.S. Anand, Justices S.P. Bharucha and M.K. Mukherjee pointed out that the two judges were bound by the jdugment of the larger bench in the Bangalore Water Supply case and in their opinion the judgment did not require ``any reconsideration.''

The three-judge bench also sent out a silent but clear message that it will notstep in where the political executive has thought it wise to keep off. In 1982, the Parliament had amended the definition of ``industry'' in the Industrial Disputes act to restrict the wide meaning given by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board case.

The new definition of ``industry'' sought to exclude institutions like hospitals, dispensaries, educational, scientific and research or training institutes, institutions engaged in charitable, social and philanthropic services. It was also proposed to exclude sovereign functions of the government including activities like atomic energy, space and defence research.

For all these institutions it was proposed to have a separate special law for the settlement of grievances. But after this legislative mandate, successive Union Govern- ments have not had the courage to bring this into force by issuing the necessary notification. Of course, it remains a moot point as to what the apex court would do if someone were to move a petition for the enforcement ofthis definition in terms of the A.K. Roy vs Union of India judgment of the Supreme Court which held that a legislative mandate cannot be held in abeyance by ruling politicians for an unreasonable period.

In the Coir Board case some temporary clerks and typists were discharged by the Board. They claimed that their services could have been terminated only in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act. A full bench of the Kerala high court considered the issue whether the Coir Board could be an ``industry'' under the Industrial Disputes act. It considered this issue along with the status of several government departments, government companies, statutory corporations and local bodies. It held that the Coir Board was an industry and so the services of its workmen could be terminated only in consonance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act.

The Board appealed against this judgment to the Su-preme Court. Justices Sujata Manohar and D.P. Wadhwa, while specifically recognising the binding decision ofthe seven-judge bench in Bangalore Water Supply case, nevertheless expressed their own views by analysing several prior judgments of the apex court and the high courts which had held to the contrary. They even considered the amendments passed by the Parliament but not enforced by the government and spelt out what they thought were the deleterious effects of the seven-judge bench judgment on charitable and other activities resulting in loss of employment and of benefits to the general community. Their analysis extended to a whole range of activities from self-employed women, NGOs to education and fine arts.

Accordingly in terms of their assessment of deleterious effects on the social fabric of the seven-judge bench judgment in the Bangalore Water Supply case, the two judges declared that since judicial interpretation had given rise to these difficulties, there was ``no reason why the matter should not be judicially re-examined.'' With this kind of approach in which judges state social facts arising fromtheir own knowledge and then ask for reconsideration of apex court decisions, no judgment of the Supreme Court would ever be final.

The two judges not only concluded that the seven-judge bench judgment ``might have done more damage than good'' but also came out with legislative suggestions. According to them, the welfare of those employed in organisations other than industries as understood by them, required different measures tailored to such organisations, their infrastructure, financial capacity and needs of employees. The court room seemed to have become a seminar room.

After holding that ``it is necessary that the decision in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board's case is re-examined'', the two judges directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India ``to consider whether a larger bench should be constituted to reconsider the decision of this court.'' The Chief Justice and the two other judges have refused the invitation by pointing out the parliamentary amendment, that thejudgment does not ``require any reconsideration on a reference being made by two-judge bench of this court which is bound by the judgment of the larger bench.'' There is a need to keep in mind the model of Chief Justice of India (now retired) A.M. Ahmadi who disagreed with the majority in the second judges' appointments and transfer case but implemented that judgment faithfully as a Chief Justice.