Labour Codes : Industrial Relations Code = Delhi High Court question Centre on implementation of IR Code without transition plan

 N A SebastiaDelhi High Court Questions Centre on Failure to Constitute Industrial Tribunals UnderNew Industrial Relations Code, Flags Absence of Smooth Transition Plan N A Sebastian and Anr vs Union of India , W.P.(C) 18325/2025 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Adrija Bhadra, Mr.Sarfuddin Khan, Mr. Tej Bahadur Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Ashish Dixit, CGSC, Ms.Gurleen Kaur Waraich, SPC, Mr. Surjeet Singh, GP, Mr. Jaideep Singh Waraich and Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocates for UOI.The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Union Government on a petition challengingthe implementation of the Industrial Relations (IR) Code, 2020, highlighting that pendinglabour disputes from erstwhile Labour Courts and Tribunals under the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 stand transferred to new Industrial Tribunals that have not yet been constituted.A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar RaoGedela observed that the Centre’s notification dated 21 November 2025 appointing that datefor commencement of the IR Code has created a legal vacuum. Under Section 51 of the Code,all pending cases before pre-existing Labour Courts and Tribunals are automaticallytransferred to the new regime’s Industrial Tribunals on commencement, but Section 44mandates constitution of such Tribunals comprising Judicial and Administrative Members.Interestingly, no such bodies exist owing to the absence of qualifying rules under Section 184of the Finance Act, 2017.The Court prima facie observed that the necessary provisions for the transition periodallowing a smooth transfer of the Labour Code seemed to have been overlooked by theCentral Government, resulting in labour disputes remaining unattended. It remarked there is“no likelihood” of Tribunals being constituted soon, leaving transferred cases in limbo andpreventing adjudication of even new disputes.The Bench suggested a simple solution, noting that the transition could have been easilymanaged by issuing notifications to enforce different provisions from different dates. Itdirected Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma to seek urgent instructions and considerremedial steps.The petition seeks stay on the 21 November notification to avert this “inadvertent” disruption.The matter is listed for hearing on 10 December 2025n & Anr v. Union of India].

Courtesy: Scribd