Preventing a "Cryonic Freeze": Kerala High Court Salvages Stability in Labor Adjudication

In a significant ruling for the nation’s industrial framework, the Kerala High Court has affirmed the validity of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026. The Division Bench, comprising Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran and Mr. Justice Basant Balaji, held that Section 104(1A) serves as a vital transitory mechanism, ensuring that labor-related disputes do not grind to a halt while the new systemic infrastructure is finalized.

The Conflict: Old Forums vs. New Codes The dispute arose when appellants M.K. Suresh Kumar and K. Padmanabhan challenged the 2026 amendment to the Industrial Relations Code. The core of their argument was that allowing Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals constituted under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to continue their work was a violation of the new Code’s mandate. Specifically, they contended that this created a conflict with sections 44(7) and 51(1), which demand the transfer of all pending cases to newly established, multi-member tribunals.

The appellants argued that the continued exercise of power by these "old" authorities was unconstitutional, rendering the amendment "manifestly arbitrary" and a threat to the rights of litigants under Articles 14 and 21.

Avoiding a "Cryonic Freeze" Representing the Union of India, the Additional Solicitor General of India, P. Sreekumar, provided a stark warning: if the challenge were successful, it would trigger a complete cessation of adjudicatory functions. The government argued that this would lead to a "cryonic freeze" of justice, leaving thousands of claimants with no forum to pursue their grievances.

The court found this reasoning compelling, emphasizing that the law must provide for a functional bridge during periods of legislative transition.

Key Observations The judgment clarifies that the legislature's intent was to prevent administrative chaos. Highlighting the balance between statutory mandate and functional necessity, the court noted:

  • "Section 104(1A) of the 'Code' is a non-obstante provision , which provides that the functionaries and statutory authorities under the repealed Acts as per it, would continue to function till the Tribunals and other Authorities become functional under it."
  • "Far from being arbitrary and shocking, this creates a transitory mechanism, for the period until new Tribunals and statutory Authorities are brought into existence; thus removing any event to cause prejudice to litigants and claimants."
  • "It is precisely during the time it takes for the Tribunals to be so constituted, that the transitory provision applies. We cannot bring ourselves to find anything wrong in this."

A Pragmatic Approach to Transition Drawing on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Shayara Bano v. Union of India , the Division Bench reiterated that legislation can only be struck down if it is "manifestly and shockingly arbitrary." Finding no such vice in the transitory provision, the court observed that the appellant provided no argument to suggest the Parliament lacked the basic legislative competence to enact such a measure.

Final Verdict: Judicial Continuity Prevails The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ appeal, effectively upholding the status quo. For workers and employers alike, this ruling serves as a guarantee of institutional stability. The adjudication of industrial disputes will continue uninterrupted under the existing authorities until the government fully transitions to the new tribunal structure—a process the court noted is already underway. By rejecting the appeal, the bench has prioritized the uninterrupted access to justice over a rigid, potentially disruptive interpretation of the new labor code.