In a significant clarification aimed at preventing a legal and administrative vacuum, the Union government informed the Delhi High Court on Thursday that all existing labour courts, industrial tribunals, and national industrial tribunals will continue to adjudicate both pending and future matters under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IRC) until the new tribunals mandated by the Code are formally established. The assurance comes at a time when concerns were mounting regarding the operational vacuum created after the Code was notified without the accompanying rules or institutional mechanisms required for its implementation.

The submission was made before a bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, during the hearing of a petition filed by advocates practising before labour courts and industrial tribunals. The petitioners argued that the notification bringing the IRC into operation on November 21, 2025, in the absence of rules and fully constituted tribunals, had effectively paralysed the machinery for industrial dispute resolution. The government’s commitment seeks to address this apprehension and ensure continuity and smooth functioning while the new framework is being constructed.

Industrial Relations Code: A New Architecture for Labour Dispute Resolution

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, is one of the four consolidated labour codes enacted by the government to streamline, modernise, and rationalise India’s extensive labour law landscape. Together, the four codes replace 29 separate labour laws. The IRC specifically consolidates and replaces the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Trade Unions Act, 1926, creating a unified legislative framework governing trade unions, conditions of employment, and mechanisms for dispute resolution.

A crucial part of this framework is Section 51 of the IRC, which provides for the transfer of all industrial dispute-related cases pending before any authority—conciliation officers, courts, boards, or tribunals—to the new industrial tribunals once they are established. The Code envisions a reconfigured adjudicatory system with revised qualifications, composition, and jurisdiction of tribunals.

However, the petitioners argued that the government activated the Code without first framing the rules required to set up and operationalise these new tribunals. This, they said, created a legislative mismatch: old laws had been subsumed, new tribunals had not been created, and rules governing their establishment had not been notified.

Government Defends Steps Taken to Prevent Disruption

Representing the Union government, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and standing counsel Ashish Dixit cited a December 8 notification issued under the “power to remove difficulties” clause. They argued that this notification ensures seamless continuity of adjudication and prevents any regulatory vacuum.

The notification, they said, clarifies that until new tribunals under the IRC are constituted, the existing judicial and quasi-judicial mechanisms will continue to hear cases under the Code. Thus, pending disputes, new filings, and ongoing adjudications will not come to a halt.

The government also submitted that the rules governing the appointment, qualification, and terms of the new tribunal members are under active formulation, and the transition will be carried out in a coordinated and phased manner.

Petitioners Say Code Operationalised Prematurely

Advocates, including petitioner NA Sebastian, argued that the government’s approach amounted to “putting the cart before the horse.” The petition contends that the IRC creates a distinct adjudicatory framework, which includes a restructured industrial tribunal with specific qualifications and powers. Without rules governing the constitution, jurisdiction, and structure of such tribunals, the notification bringing the Code into force becomes unworkable.

They further stated that because the government had not expressly repealed the Industrial Disputes Act or the Trade Unions Act through a separate notification, ambiguity continues regarding the legal validity of ongoing proceedings. This ambiguity, they said, could lead to challenges, delays, and conflicting interpretations, thereby harming workers, employers, and the justice system alike.

High Court Previously Expressed Displeasure

Last week, the Delhi High Court had already expressed its dissatisfaction with the government’s decision to operationalise the Code without simultaneously framing rules or establishing the institutions required to enforce it. The court observed that such an approach risked leaving litigants and courts in limbo, causing confusion and potential injustice.

The bench had then directed the government to take timely corrective steps, ensuring that the transition from the old labour law framework to the new one is executed with clarity and coherence.

Court Acknowledges Government’s Efforts; Smooth Transition Expected

In Thursday’s hearing, after the government conveyed its position and referenced the remedial notification, the court noted the efforts being made to address the gaps and expressed confidence that all necessary measures would be taken to ensure continuity.

“We appreciate the efforts made by Shri Sharma and further repose our trust that at the end of the government, everything required to provide a smooth transition from the old to the new labour law regime shall be done,” the bench stated. The court then scheduled January 12 as the next date of hearing, signalling the expectation that substantial progress will be reported by then.

What Happens Next

The government now faces the task of:

• Finalising and notifying the rules governing the constitution and functioning of new industrial tribunals
• Ensuring procedural compatibility between existing mechanisms and the new Code until the transition is complete
• Issuing explicit clarifications or repeal notifications for earlier Acts, if required
• Establishing clear guidelines on transfer of pending cases under Section 51
• Training and orienting officials, tribunal members, and stakeholders to the new framework

The continuity arrangement ensures that labour disputes will not face procedural delays in the interim. However, the effectiveness of the IRC depends heavily on how quickly and efficiently the institutional and procedural gaps are bridged.

Conclusion

The Union government’s assurance before the Delhi High Court seeks to address immediate concerns arising from the premature operationalisation of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. By allowing existing mechanisms to function until new tribunals are constituted, the government aims to avoid legal uncertainty and maintain the integrity of industrial dispute resolution.

As the country waits for the full rollout of the new labour law framework, the onus is now on the government to ensure that rules are framed, tribunals are constituted, and transitions are managed without disruption. The January 12 hearing is expected to review the progress and determine the next steps in implementing one of the most significant labour reforms in India’s legislative history.