Growth and Development of Industrial Jurisprudence in India
The term industry has always been a very controversial point in the area of industrial jurisprudence. However, there have been some judgments in a string of cases, which have tried to resolve the dispute and lay down an adequate definition whenever question arose. Later it has been realized that these definitions have created huge confusion. To pacify the situation the definition of industry under section 2(j) of the IDA was considered by the Supreme Court in the land mark judgment of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs A.Rajjapa and Ors 1 , wherein the court laid down the broad interpretation of the term industry. This judgment holds importance because it was for the first time that a comparatively clear definition of the term was given. The phrases labour laws' and 'industrial laws' are used synonymously and refer to those laws and legal rules which regulate the employer-employee relations. Some of these laws impose certain obligations or confer certain rights upon the employers or the employees so that in the ultimate analysis they can be deemed to impinge upon employer-employee relations.
Labour Law in a Globalising World
At the opening of the 21st century it is clear that increasing globalisation will remain one of the most important long term influences on the evolution of the international economy and international political structures. The controversial nature of globalisation is self-evident from the increasing intensity of antiglobalisation demonstrations at meetings of international bodies such as the World Trade Organisation. While the actual nature of globalisation, the direction in which it will take the world and the costs and benefits that will result are still contestable, it is clear that the main, and certainly the most effective, drivers are economic. Nations are primarily concerned to set in place structures that promote the free movement of capital including the freedom of multinational companies to locate and relocate around the world, and to promote free trade in goods and services. While non-economic values such as environmental protection and social and labour rights are not excluded from the debates setting these structures in place, they are largely marginal to it. One symbol of this marginalisation is that the ILO, unlike the World Bank, IMF and OECD, does not enjoy observer status at the WTO in spite of the rhetoric of concern for such rights from member states of the Organisation. As McCrudden and Davies explain,1 this exclusion is the result of a major and continuing division between developed and developing countries within the WTO that in the 1990s prevented agreement on any tangible measures in the Marrakesh agreements and that has continued to block subsequent progress. The stark divisions between these groups became even more apparent at the Singapore Ministerial meeting in 1996 when an invitation to the head of the ILO to speak was withdrawn. The only tangible result was a weak statement to the effect that members agreed that labour standards should be upheld but that this should be done through the ILO and not the WTO. The suspicion of developing countries that any link between trade and labour standards will lead to increased protectionism is almost certainly justified. Experience within the WTO to date provides little reason for developing countries to have any great faith in the undertakings of the developed world. Developing countries have seen the promises of movement toward freer trade that might benefit them fade into the distance while at the same time the undertakings they entered into are increasingly used to their disadvantage.2
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.