Kerala High Court Upholds Industrial Relations Code Amendment Allowing Continuation Of Existing Tribunals

The Kerala High Court has recently upheld the validity of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, dismissing a writ petition that challenged the amendment to Section 104(1) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.Justice Gopinath P. delivered the judgment. The Section 104(1) of the Code repealed statutes including, the Trade Unions Act, 1926, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But, the 2026 amendment, which incorporated Section 104(1A) in the Code stated that the functioning of the Tribunals and statutory authorities functioning under the repealed Acts must continue adjudicating disputes until the other statutory authorities become functional under the Code. The petitioners contended that this amendment undermined the statutory scheme of the 2020 Code, which envisages a new institutional framework.The petitioners also raised the contention that the provision was 'manifestly arbitrary' and violated Article 14 and and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners had earlier approached the Court challenging a Central Government notification that permits Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals constituted under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to continue adjudicating cases even after the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 came into force.This was dismissed by the Court. An appeal against the judgment is pending before a Division Bench of the Court. The Union Government, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, relied on the earlier judgment in Suresh Kumar M.K. v. Union of India [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 106], which had upheld a similar executive notification and argued that writ petition is only to be dismissed. The Court analysed the amended provisions and observed that even if the amendment appeared inconsistent with other provisions of the 2020 Code, the presence of a non-obstante clause in Section 104(1A) ensured its overriding effect. Therefore, intra-statute inconsistency cannot invalidate a legislative provision, especially when Parliament has expressly provided for such override.“A perusal of the grounds raised in the writ petition indicates that the primary contention of the petitioners is that the primary contention taken is that the provisions of the amended Section 104 of the 2020 Code are contrary to other provisions of the same enactment. This cannot be a ground to challenge the provisions of Sub-Section (1A) of Section 104 of the 2020 Code (which, according to the petitioners, is the amending provision) as the said provision starts with a non-obstante clause. Therefore, that provision will operate even if there is any contrary or inconsistent provision in the same enactment.” The Court further added that there is no fundamental right to contend that the adjudication of disputes constituted under the provision of the 2020 Code. On the question of 'manifest arbitrariness', the Court applied the test laid down in Shayara Bano v Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1], and emphasised that legislation can only be struck down if it is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable. “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.” Court observed. The Court thus dismissed the petition. Case Title: M.K Suresh Kumar and Anr. v The Union of India Case No: WP(C) 14179/ 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 219Counsel for Petitioners: A. Abdul Nabeel, Anand B. MenonCounsel for Respondents: P. Sreekumar (ASGI)Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment

Kerala High Court Upholds Industrial Relations Code Amendment Allowing Continuation Of Existing Tribunals

Anamika MJ

Tags