The Calcutta High Court has clarified that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 remains operative until explicitly repealed by a notification under Section 104 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to halt ongoing proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the old Act had been automatically repealed, reinforcing that statutory repeal requires precise executive action and cannot be inferred.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Commerce House Owners Association Ltd., sought to stay proceedings before the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in Case No. 29/2013/2A(2), on the ground that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had been repealed by the coming into force of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to continue hearing the matter after 21.11.2025, the date on which the Code was notified as effective.
Key Facts
- The dispute originated in 2013, involving a claim by a workman against the petitioner for reinstatement and back wages
- The case has been pending before the Industrial Tribunal for over 13 years
- On 21.11.2025, the Central Government issued Notification No. S.O. 5320(E) notifying the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020
- The notification did not specify the date of repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
- On 08.12.2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued Notification No. S.O. 5683(E) to remove difficulties in implementation of the Code, including clarification on Section 104
- The impugned order dated 12.12.2025 rejected the petitioner’s application to keep the proceedings in abeyance
- The clarification notification dated 08.12.2025 was published on 08.12.2025 but was later amended by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2026, effective 16.02.2026
Procedural History
- 2013: Original dispute filed before the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal (Case No. 29/2013/2A(2))
- 21.11.2025: Notification S.O. 5320(E) issued, bringing the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 into force
- 08.12.2025: Notification S.O. 5683(E) issued, clarifying Section 104 of the Code
- 12.12.2025: Industrial Tribunal rejected petitioner’s application to stay proceedings
- 24.03.2026: Writ Petition (WPA 4452 of 2026) decided by the Calcutta High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that Section 104 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, read with Notification dated 21.11.2025, automatically repealed the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, rendering the Tribunal functus officio. Relied on the principle that new codes supersede old statutes upon commencement.
Respondent (Workman): Contended that Section 104 requires explicit notification to repeal the 1947 Act, and no such notification had been issued. Argued that the clarificatory notification dated 08.12.2025 was valid and confirmed the continued applicability of the 1947 Act.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal’s order dated 12.12.2025 and direction to keep the proceedings in abeyance until the transfer of jurisdiction under the new Code. No monetary relief was claimed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stands automatically repealed upon the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, or whether its repeal requires a specific notification under Section 104(1) of the Code.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 104(1) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, when read with Notification S.O. 5320(E) dated 21.11.2025, implied the repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They contended that the absence of an express date of repeal was immaterial, as the Code’s commencement triggered automatic repeal. They further argued that the Tribunal’s reliance on the clarificatory notification dated 08.12.2025 was invalid, as it had not yet been amended by the 16.02.2026 Act.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel submitted that Section 104(1) explicitly requires the Central Government to specify the date of repeal in the notification. Since the 21.11.2025 notification did not specify such a date, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 remained in force. They relied on Section 103 of the Code, which permits clarificatory notifications to remove difficulties, and argued that Notification S.O. 5683(E) dated 08.12.2025 was a valid exercise of this power. They further distinguished Section 99(5), which applies to rules and not clarifications, and emphasized that the Tribunal’s reliance on the clarification was legally sound.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual analysis of Section 104 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. It observed that the provision is unambiguous: "the remaining provisions of the enactments referred to in clauses (a) to (c) shall remain in force till they are repealed by like notifications in the like manner." The Court held that the phrase "like notifications in the like manner" clearly indicates that repeal is not automatic but contingent upon a subsequent, specific notification.
"Section 104 of the Code of 2020, as on the date of order dated 12.12.2025, clearly provides 'the remaining provisions of the enactments referred to in clauses (a) to (c) shall remain in force till they are repealed by like notifications in the like manner.'"
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the 21.11.2025 notification implied repeal. It noted that if Parliament intended automatic repeal, it would have used language such as "shall stand repealed on the date of commencement" - as seen in other statutes. The absence of such language was decisive.
The Court further held that the clarificatory notification dated 08.12.2025, issued under Section 103, was valid and legally operative upon publication. It distinguished Section 99(5), which mandates parliamentary scrutiny for rules, and clarified that clarifications under Section 103 do not require such procedural compliance. The Court emphasized that Section 103 notifications are administrative in nature and intended to remove ambiguities, not to create new law.
The Court also noted the extraordinary delay of 13 years in adjudicating the dispute and observed that the petitioner’s application was a dilatory tactic. It found no merit in the technical challenge and affirmed the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Calcutta High Court held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 remained in force on 12.12.2025 and continues to apply until explicitly repealed by a notification under Section 104(1). The Tribunal’s order dated 12.12.2025 was upheld. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 30,000 on the petitioner to be paid to the workman within 15 days. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the pending case within 60 days of the order, without unnecessary adjournments.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Repeal Is Not Automatic
- Practitioners must now confirm whether a specific repeal notification has been issued under Section 104(1) before assuming an old statute is repealed
- Merely citing the commencement date of a new code is insufficient to establish repeal of prior legislation
- Any application to stay proceedings on grounds of statutory repeal must be supported by proof of a valid repeal notification
Clarificatory Notifications Are Legally Binding
- Notifications issued under Section 103 to remove difficulties are effective upon publication in the Gazette
- Such notifications do not require parliamentary scrutiny under Section 99(5)
- Tribunals and courts may rely on clarificatory notifications even before subsequent amendment acts are passed
Delay in Labour Disputes Will Be Penalized
- Courts will view dilatory tactics in long-pending labour cases with disfavour
- Costs may be imposed on employers or associations seeking procedural delays
- Tribunals are now explicitly directed to expedite disposal of cases pending beyond five years
