M.K. SURESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash Ext.P1 notification issued as S.O. 5683(E) dtd. 8/12/2025 by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment in the exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 103 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2020 Code') inter alia providing that existing Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunals constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1947 Act') shall continue to adjudicate the existing as well as new cases arising under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders), 1946 and the 1947 Act as well as the 2020 Code till the constitution of Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunals under the 2020 Code. It is the case of the petitioners that Ext.P1 notification is ultra vires the provisions of the 2020 Code and cannot be sustained in law.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contends that Ext.P1 notification dtd. 8/12/2025 cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that such a notification is not contemplated by the provisions of Sec. 103(1) of the 2020 Code. It is submitted that the power to remove difficulties, which has been conferred on the Central Government in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 103 of the 2020 Code, makes it clear that the removal of difficulties clause only permits the making of an order or provision not inconsistent with the provisions of the 2020 Code. It is submitted that Ext.P1 notification runs counter to the provisions of Sec. 44(7) of the 2020 Code, which specifies that a certain category of disputes shall be adjudicated only by a Bench consisting of a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member. It is submitted that permitting the adjudication of such disputes by Labour Courts or Tribunals constituted under the 1947 Act, consisting only of one Presiding Officer, is contrary to the provisions of the 2020 Code. It is submitted that Sec. 51(1) of the 2020 Code mandates the transfer of all pending cases to the newly formed Tribunals and permitting the adjudication of disputes by existing Courts/Tribunals is against the provisions of the 2020 Code. It is submitted with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das and others, (2022) 16 SCC 318, that under the cover of the removal of difficulties clause, the Central Government cannot 'remove all obstacles in its path which arise due to statutory restrictions'. It is submitted that the same decision holds that if such a course of action is permitted, the same would be antithetical to the Rule of Law. It is submitted that permitting adjudication of disputes by the existing Labour Courts/Tribunals would amount to sidestepping the provisions of the 2020 Code and defeating the purposes of the legislation. It is submitted that the Central Government cannot, therefore, take refuge under Sec. 103 and the terms of Ext.P1 notification.

(3.) Sri. A.R.L Sundaresan, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the official respondents, would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable. He has questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to file the present petition. The learned Additional Solicitor General has taken me through the provisions of Ss. 47, 51, 103, and 104 of the 2020 Code. He contends that the failure to issue a notification specifying that the existing Labour Courts/Tribunals shall continue to exercise jurisdiction to decide disputes would result in a stalemate. It is submitted that the transfer of cases contemplated by provisions of Sec. 51 can be made only after new Forums are constituted, keeping in mind the provisions of the 2020 Code and directions issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of appointment of Tribunal members, and it would not be in the public interest if the adjudicatory Forums presently functioning are abruptly stopped. It is submitted that the issue had gained the attention of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in W.P (C) No.18325/2025, as also a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P No.47257/2025. It is submitted that in both the aforesaid judgments, the Court noted the terms of Ext.P1 notification, as also two other notifications issued as S.O. Nos. 464(E) and 465(E), both dtd. 2/2/2026, and concluded (essentially) that there is no illegality whatsoever in Ext.P1 notification. It is submitted that allowing the existing adjudicatory mechanism to continue till the new Tribunals are constituted under the 2020 Code does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners, and the terms of Ext.P1 cannot be said to be ultra vires to the provisions of the 2020 Code.