Existing Labour Courts retain jurisdiction to execute awards under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even after the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, until the new Tribunals contemplated under the Code are formally constituted, to ensure continuity of proceedings and protect the rights of beneficiaries.

Headnote:The petitioner sought to enforce a labor award, but the lower court returned the execution petition citing the repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act and the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code. The petitioner challenged this by pointing to a government notification ensuring continuity of jurisdictional authority for existing labor forums until new tribunals are established under the new Code. The Court found that for the purpose of ensuring continuity and preventing a legal vacuum, the existing Labor Courts retain jurisdiction over execution matters arising from prior awards until new tribunals are constituted. The main issue was whether the Labor Court lost jurisdiction to execute proceedings after the implementation of the Industrial Relations Code. The Court held that despite the transition, existing Labor Courts continue to act as the executing authority to prevent claimants from being left remediless, relying on the notification issued under the new Code to maintain the continuity of judicial processes. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the lower court is set aside with a direction to register and dispose of the execution petition in accordance with law.

Table of Content
1. failure of lower court to execute awards due to jurisdictional confusion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. continuity of jurisdiction for existing labor courts during statutory transition. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. setting aside erroneous return of execution petition. (Para 8)

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the endorsement made by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in E.P. unnumbered of 2026 in C.P. No.1 of 2023, whereby the execution petition filed by the petitioner was returned on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to execute the award.

2. The petitioner had obtained an award from the jurisdictional Labour Court directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,92,190/- towards arrears of wages payable to the petitioner. Since the respondent failed to pay the said amount, the petitioner was constrained to file an execution petition before the Labour Court concerned.

3. The Labour Court, through the impugned endorsement, returned the execution petition stating that, in view of the repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Notification dated 08.12.2025 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, whereby, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 103 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, it has been clarified that the existing Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunals constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall continue to adjudicate both existing and new cases for the purpose of ensuring continuity in adjudication and to avoid any legal or administrative vacuum until the constitution of Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.

5. In view of the clarification issued by the Central Government, the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, continues to have jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition.

6. Sub-clause (9) of Clause 49 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 states that every award made, order issued, or settlement arrived at by or before a Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of decrees and orders of a civil court under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and for such purpose, the Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court.

7. Admittedly, after the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the Tribunals contemplated under the said Code have not yet been constituted. In the light of the clarification issued by the Central Government to remove difficulties, the existing Labour Courts shall continue to adjudicate pending matters. The execution petition filed by the petitioner is only a continuation of the original proceedings. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been taken away until the constitution of the Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The petitioner cannot be left remediless for enforcement of the award. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court concerned continues to possess jurisdiction to execute the award till the constitution of the Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. Consequently, the impugned endorsement made by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, returning the execution petition with a direction to present the same before the appropriate forum is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

8. In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned docket order dated 30.03.2026 passed in E.P. unnumbered of 2026 in C.P. No.1 of 2023 by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, is hereby set aside. The Labour Court, Tirunelveli, is directed to number the execution petition, if it is otherwise in order, and dispose

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43894

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHemant Chandangoudar, JC.Jeyaraj – AppellantVersusManagement, S.G.J.Auto Care – RespondentE.P.No. unnumbered of 2026 in C.P.No.1 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
C.Jeyaraj – Appellant
Versus
Management, S.G.J.Auto Care – Respondent
E.P.No. unnumbered of 2026 in C.P.No.1 of 2023