Kerala HC Reserves Verdict In Plea Challenging Centre's Order Allowing Old Labour Courts To Function After Enactment Of New Industrial Code

Justice Gopinath P heard the arguments of both the parties and reserved for orders.

A notification dated December 8, 2025, was issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, by which existing Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunals were authorised to continue adjudication of both pending and new industrial disputes until new tribunals are constituted under the 2020 Code.

According to the petitioners, the notification was issued by invoking Section 103 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which empowers the Central Government to remove “difficulties” in implementing the Code. The petition contends that this provision cannot be used to override or suspend mandatory statutory provisions.

According to the Section 103, if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of theCode, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Code as may appear to it to be necessary for removing the difficulty. This can be done only within three years from the enactment of code.

Today, the Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI), ARL Sundaresan representing the Centre, submitted that there is a transition period for the enacting the legislation and if any difficulties arise during the period, Section 103 can be invoked to remove that difficulty.

“The parliament enacted, industrial Code... aware of the fact that there will be a transition problem. A transition period of three years is given and therefore, my lord for the purpose of removing difficulties.. If any difficulty arises on the case to case basis a notification can be issued under Section 103..” ASGI submitted.

According to Section 51(1) of the Code, all cases pending before Labour Courts and Tribunals constituted under the 1947 Act must stand transferred to the corresponding Tribunal under the new Code from the date of commencement.

The Court questioned whether the transfer contemplated by Section 51 is only interfered by the notification and whether it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Code.

ASGI submitted that the notification fills the vacuum and it was further submitted that previously two High Courts, namely Delhi High Court and Madras High Court have approved the notification when public interest litigation with similar prayers were placed before it.

“This is an all India enactment…Two High Courts have already approved…The grievance before the high Courts was that the Union was sitting quiet .. They have not formed a new Tribunal .. The Old Tribunal cannot consider therefore some arrangement has to be made... ..Immediately we sprung into action. The two High Courts division Bench would not have given a seal of approval to those notifications otherwise They would have said that the notes are inconsistent, therefore we would not approve it. In fact two division benches have allowed it.” ASGI submitted.

The petitioner pointed out that the Tribunal contemplated under the 2020 Code has not yet been constituted. Instead of establishing the new Tribunal, the Central Government allegedly sought to fill the vacuum by allowing the old adjudicatory bodies to continue functioning, an approach the petitioners term as ultra vires the statute.

The petitioner argued that Section 103 does not permit the executive to override express legislative commands or to cure administrative delay. It is submitted that non-constitution of the Tribunal under the new Code cannot be characterised as a “difficulty” within the meaning of the provision.

“Section 51 contemplates the transfer of pending cases to the new tribunals to be constituted under the Code..So far as those transfers are concerned and so far as the new petitions to be filed under the new Code are concerned.. The government by an order says that the existing tribunals would continue.. You are right .. in one way there is inconsistence with the provisions of the Code… But look at it another way.. Why should there be difficulties.. Because while implementing new laws there can be unprecedented or unexpected difficulty..Ultimately, it is all public interest.. ” Court said

The Court further added:

“On a technical ground, you may be entitled to say all these things. As far as the High Court is concerned.. It is only a discussion of the jurisdiction.”

The petition seeks quashing of the December 8, 2025 notification and a direction to the Central Government to withdraw or rescind it. An interim prayer has also been made seeking a stay on the operation of the impugned notification pending disposal of the writ petition.

The Court heard the submissions of both the sides and reserved it for orders.

Case Title: M K Suresh Kumar and Anr v The Union of Indian and Anr.

Case No: WP(C) 824/ 2026

Counsel for Petitioner: Anand B Menon, Vijayakumar K