Back
Shields Labour Law Transition: Old Tribunals Stay Put
In a swift dismissal, the has upheld a key amendment to India's Industrial Relations Code, 2020, rejecting claims it undermines constitutional rights. Justice Gopinath P. ruled on April 8, 2026, in WP(C) No. 14179 of 2026 , filed by petitioners M.K. Suresh Kumar and K. Padmanabhan against the . The verdict reinforces a seamless shift in labour dispute machinery, echoing earlier media reports like Upholds Industrial Relations Code Amendment Allowing Continuation Of Existing Tribunals .
Roots in Labour Law Overhaul
The saga traces back to the consolidation of labour laws under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 ( IRC 2020 ), which repeals older statutes like the Trade Unions Act, 1926; Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A prior notification (S.O. 5683(E), December 8, 2025) allowed existing Labour Courts and Tribunals to handle cases during the transition—a move upheld by the same court in Suresh Kumar M.K. v. (2026 (2) KHC 371), now under appeal as W.A. No. 572/2026.
Enter the flashpoint: the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (effective February 16, 2026), inserting . This provision ensures repealed Acts' tribunals
"continue to function till such Tribunals and other statutory authorities become functional under this Code."
Petitioners argued this clashes with IRC 2020's framework, breaching Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life/liberty).
Petitioners Cry Foul, Government Counters Firmly
Petitioners, represented by Advocates A. Abdul Nabeel and Anand B. Menon, contended the amendment is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and ultra vires IRC 2020. They highlighted internal inconsistencies and sought tagging with the pending appeal.
Additional Solicitor General P. Sreekumar, for the Union and , leaned on the prior single-judge ruling. He argued the amendment withstands scrutiny, dismissing any need for linkage to the appeal, as issues diverged.
Dissecting Arbitrariness: Lessons from Supreme Court Precedents
Justice Gopinath P. zeroed in on the non-obstante clause in —"Notwithstanding such repeal"—which trumps any conflicting provisions within IRC 2020. No fundamental rights are infringed, he noted, as petitioners lack a vested right to new tribunals exclusively.
The 'manifestly arbitrary' claim fell flat against Shayara Bano v. (2017) 9 SCC 1 benchmarks. The court quoted extensively:
"What is manifestly arbitrary is obviously unreasonable and being contrary to the rule of law, would violate ."
Citing Malpe Vishwanath Acharya , Mardia Chemicals Ltd. , and Natural Resources Allocation, In re , it clarified legislation survives unless disproportionately excessive. Here, continuity aids practical adjudication without caprice.
No challenge to Parliament's competence or basic structure arose.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On the Amendment's Text :
"Notwithstanding such repeal under sub-section (1), the functioning of the Tribunals and statutory authorities functioning under the Acts so repealed shall continue to function till such Tribunals and other statutory authorities becomes functional under this Code."
-
Non-Obstante Power :
"Therefore, that provision will operate even if there is any contrary or inconsistent provision in the same enactment."
-
No Rights Violation :
"The petitioners have no fundamental right to contend that the adjudication of disputes under the relevant enactments can only be before adjudicatory bodies constituted under the provisions of the 2020 Code."
-
Arbitrariness Test :
"Tested on the principles laid down in Shayara Bano (supra), I do not find any reason to even hold that the provisions that have been challenged are arbitrary, much less manifestly arbitrary."
Verdict Locks In Stability for Labour Disputes
"This Writ Petition will stand dismissed in limine,"
declared Justice Gopinath P., refusing tagging with the appeal.
The ruling stabilizes India's labour justice system amid reforms, preventing voids in adjudication. Future challenges must clear high bars on arbitrariness and rights, potentially influencing rollouts of other labour codes. Workers and employers gain certainty: old tribunals endure until new ones stand ready.
