No Fundamental Right Affected: Kerala High Court Dismisses Challenge Against Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act Allowing Continuation Of Existing Tribunals

The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the provisions of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, as unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (2020 Code). It was contended that the provisions of the amending act, which amends Section 104(1) of the 2020 Code, are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Single Bench of Justice Gopinath P. held, “No fundamental right of the petitioners is affected by the impugned amendment. 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.”

“Thus, I find no ground made out for the grant of the reliefs sought. I also find no reason to adjourn this Writ Petition to be heard along with W.A No.572/2026, as the issues in that case are completely different. This Writ Petition will stand dismissed in limine”, it ordered.

Advocates A. Abdul Nabeel represented the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General Of India P. Sreekumar represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioners that they had earlier challenged a notification issued by the Central Government as S.O 5683(E) dated December 8, 2025, providing that notwithstanding the repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 existing Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall continue to adjudicate the existing as well as new cases arising under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and 1947 Act as well as the 2020 Code till the constitution of Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunals under the 2020 Code. The petitioners contended that the provisions of Section 104(1) of the 2020 Code, as amended by the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, by incorporating sub-Section (1A) could not be sustained in law.

Reasoning

The amended provisions of Section 104(1) of the 2020 Code provide that the following enactments would stand repealed on and from the date appointed in the notification issued under sub-section (3) of section 1, namely:—

(a) The Trade Unions Act, 1926;

(b) the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; and

(c) The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(1A) 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 become functional under this Code.

Taking note of the contention of the petitioners that the provisions of the amended Section 104 of the 2020 Code are contrary to other provisions of the same enactment, the Bench stated that same 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”, it stated while also adding, “The petitioners have no case that Parliament does not have the legislative competence to promulgate the provisions that have been challenged. The petitioners have no case that the provisions that have been challenged are contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution of India.”

Referring to the judgment in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017), the Bench held that there was no reason to hold that the challenged provisions were arbitrary. Thus, finding that no ground was made out for the grant of the reliefs sought, the Bench dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: M.K. Suresh Kumar v. The Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:31573)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates A. Abdul Nabeel, Anand B. Menon

Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Of India P. Sreekumar

Click here to read/download Order