Kerala High Court Upholds Centre’s Notification Allowing Existing Labour Courts & Industrial Tribunals To Function Under Industrial Relations Code 2020

The Court observed that Section 103 of the 2020 Code, empowers the Central Government to issue orders not inconsistent with the Code for removing difficulties in its implementation. The impugned notification, the Court held, merely ensured continuity of adjudicatory mechanisms during the transitional phase and was neither ultra vires nor an attempt to sidestep statutory provisions.

Justice Gopinath P. on the petitioners’ reliance on State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das and others, (2022) 16 SCC 318 to state that the Government cannot, under the guise of removing difficulties, overcome statutory limitations or dilute legislative intent, observed, “…However, one must be conscious of the fact that permitting the existing adjudicatory mechanisms and the statutory authorities to continue till the new adjudicatory mechanisms are put in place cannot be said to be an instance of sidestepping the provisions of the 2020 Code or the removal of obstacles by the Government to get over statutory restrictions. Holding that in respect of any pending proceedings, the adjudicatory bodies under the repealed enactments continue to have jurisdiction presents no difficulty”.

“Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge that Section 103 of the 2020 Code incorporates inherent safeguards. The authority to issue an order under this provision is subject to a three-year limitation. Additionally, the provision stipulates that every order 'made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament'”, the bench further observed.

Advocate Anand B. Menon appeared for the petitioners and Vishnu J., CGC appeared for the respondents.

In the matter, the petitioners had assailed the notification dated 8-12-2025 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, contending that once the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 came into force, disputes falling under the new regime could only be adjudicated by newly constituted Industrial Tribunals comprising a Judicial and an Administrative Member.

It was further argued that permitting single-member Labour Courts constituted under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to hear such matters violated Sections 44 and 51 of the Code.

The Union Government defended the notification on the ground of administrative necessity. It argued that until new Tribunals are constituted in accordance with the Code and judicial directions on tribunal appointments, halting the functioning of existing adjudicatory bodies would result in a complete stalemate in labour dispute resolution.

It was also pointed out that similar challenges had been considered by Division Benches of the Delhi and Madras High Courts, which declined to interfere with the notifications.

Therefore, referring to the precedents on the matter including Gammon India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 1 SCC 596, the Court emphasised that removal-of-difficulty clauses are meant to facilitate implementation and prevent disruption, provided they do not amount to excessive delegation or contravene statutory mandates.

The Bench further permitted existing Labour Courts and Tribunals to continue functioning until new bodies are established

Therefore, finding no illegality in the notification, the Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the transition to the new labour law framework must not come at the cost of paralysing dispute resolution mechanisms.

Cause Title: M.K. Suresh Kumar & Ors v. The Union Of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:14042]

Appearances:

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

Respondent: Vishnu J., CGC, AR L. Sundaresan (ASGI), Liju. V. Stephen, Indu Susan Jacob, Jiji Joy, Sanjay Johnson Mathew, Preethi Ramakrishnan, Pratap Abraham Varghese, Manojkumar G., Ashok Menon, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment