• B Nidhi Rathore

This paper explores judicial creativity in interpreting Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which restricts employer actions during ongoing labor disputes. Over time, courts have shaped its application from strict worker protection in the early years to a more balanced approach that considers both labor rights and business efficiency. The impact of economic liberalization, gig work, and automation has exposed gaps in the law, leaving contract and platform workers without protections.The paper also examines whether judicial activism has strengthened or overstepped legislative intent, analyzing landmark case laws and modern labor challenges. A mock Supreme Court judgment (2035) envisions how courts may interpret AI-driven employment decisions and gig economy disputes, calling for legal reforms to ensure fairness in evolving workspaces.

Judicial creativity, Section 33, Industrial Disputes Act 1947, labor law, worker protection, employer rights, economic liberalization, gig economy, AI-driven employment, contract workers, judicial activism, labor disputes, Supreme Court interpretation, automation, labor law reforms, industrial stability, legislative intervention, employment rights, case law analysis, social justice in labor law.

"Judicial Creativity and section 33: Adapting Worker Protections to a Changing Economy", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.12, Issue 2, page no.b903-b907, February-2025, Available :http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2502195.pdf

"Judicial Creativity and section 33: Adapting Worker Protections to a Changing Economy", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org | UGC and issn Approved), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.12, Issue 2, page no. ppb903-b907, February-2025, Available at : http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2502195.pdf