Section 51 Industrial Relations Code | Labour Courts Retain Jurisdiction Post-Repeal of ID Act Until New Tribunals Are Constituted : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has clarified a critical transition issue under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IR Code). In a batch of petitions filed by BDK Valves Private Limited, the Court held that Labour Courts continue to possess jurisdiction to adjudicate industrial disputes even after the repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), until new Industrial Tribunals are constituted under the IR Code. This judgment underscores the principle of continuity in adjudicatory functions during legislative transitions and provides clarity on the applicability of Section 51 of the IR Code.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, BDK Valves Private Limited, a private limited company, employed over 160 workmen at its Hubballi facility. On 27.11.2024, the petitioner terminated the services of these workmen, alleging their participation in an illegal strike organized by M/s Weir BDK Valves Worker Union. The termination led to two parallel legal proceedings:

1. Reference by the Government: The Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Hubballi, vide Order dated 15.11.2024.
2. Individual Disputes: Each workman filed separate industrial disputes before the Labour Court, Hubballi, under the ID Act, challenging their termination.

Procedural History

• 15.11.2024: Government referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Hubballi.
• 27.11.2024: Petitioner terminated the services of the workmen.
• 21.11.2025: The IR Code came into force, repealing the ID Act, Trade Unions Act, 1926, and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
• 08.12.2025: Central Government issued the Industrial Relations Code (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2025, clarifying that existing Labour Courts and Tribunals would continue to function until new Tribunals were constituted under the IR Code.
• 02.02.2026: Central Government issued the Industrial Relations Code (Removal of Difficulties) (Amendment) Order, 2026, further clarifying that all statutory authorities under the repealed Acts would continue to function until corresponding authorities were appointed under the IR Code.
• 15.04.2026: Karnataka High Court directed the petitioner to file separate petitions for each respondent and pay separate court fees.
• 08.06.2026: The Court reserved judgment in the batch of petitions.
• 12.06.2026: The Court pronounced the judgment dismissing all petitions.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that:

• The IR Code came into force on 21.11.2025, repealing the ID Act and stripping Labour Courts of their jurisdiction.
• Section 51 of the IR Code mandates the transfer of pending cases to the Industrial Tribunals constituted under Section 44 of the IR Code.
• Since no Tribunals had been constituted under the IR Code, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes.
• The proceedings before the Labour Court were no longer governed by the procedural framework of the repealed ID Act.

The petitioner relied on the judgment in Glastronix LLP v. The President/General Secretary, Glastronix Karmika Sangha and Others (NC:2026:KHC:7984), where a coordinate bench of the Karnataka High Court held that Labour Courts lacked jurisdiction post-repeal of the ID Act.

For the Respondents

The respondents argued that:

• The Central Government had issued Removal of Difficulties Orders under Section 103 of the IR Code, ensuring continuity of adjudicatory functions by existing Labour Courts and Tribunals.
• The notifications dated 08.12.2025 and 02.02.2026 explicitly clarified that existing statutory authorities would continue to function until new authorities were appointed under the IR Code.
• The petitioner was attempting to delay proceedings, as the Court had earlier directed the Labour Court to decide the disputes within six months in W.P. No.104683/2025.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought the following reliefs:

1. Transfer of all industrial disputes pending before the Labour Court, Hubballi, to the Industrial Tribunals constituted under Section 44 of the IR Code.
2. Full and actual effect to Section 51 of the IR Code.
3. Costs of the civil petitions.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether Section 51 of the IR Code operates to strip Labour Courts of their jurisdiction to adjudicate industrial disputes pending before them, given that the ID Act had been repealed and no new Industrial Tribunals had been constituted under the IR Code.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Section 51 of the IR Code mandates the transfer of pending cases to Industrial Tribunals, implying that Labour Courts lack jurisdiction post-repeal.
• The ID Act stood repealed from 21.11.2025, and no procedural framework governed the Labour Court’s proceedings.
• The judgment in Glastronix LLP supported the petitioner’s contention that Labour Courts lacked jurisdiction.

For the Respondents

• The Removal of Difficulties Orders issued under Section 103 of the IR Code ensured continuity of adjudicatory functions by existing authorities.
• The notifications explicitly stated that Labour Courts and Tribunals would continue to function until new authorities were constituted.
• The petitioner’s attempt to transfer cases was a delay tactic, as the Court had already directed expedited disposal of the disputes.

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a detailed analysis of the statutory framework and the notifications issued by the Central Government:

1. Statutory Framework: The IR Code was enacted to consolidate and amend laws relating to trade unions, industrial disputes, and conditions of employment. Section 51 of the IR Code provides for the transfer of pending cases from Labour Courts and Tribunals constituted under the ID Act to the Tribunals constituted under the IR Code.

2. Repeal and Savings: Section 104 of the IR Code stipulates that the repealed Acts shall cease to operate from the date specified in the notification. However, Section 103 empowers the Central Government to issue orders to remove difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of the IR Code.

3. Removal of Difficulties Orders: The Central Government issued two key notifications:

   • 08.12.2025: Clarified that existing Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals, and National Tribunals would continue to adjudicate pending and new cases until new Tribunals were constituted under the IR Code.
   • 02.02.2026: Further clarified that all existing statutory authorities under the repealed Acts would continue to function until corresponding authorities were appointed under the IR Code.

4. Judicial Precedent: The Court distinguished the judgment in Glastronix LLP. While the coordinate bench had held that Labour Courts lacked jurisdiction, it had also concluded that existing statutory authorities would continue to function until new authorities were constituted under the IR Code. The Court noted that the Glastronix LLP judgment did not address the Removal of Difficulties Orders in detail.

5. Jurisdictional Continuity: The Court emphasized that the Removal of Difficulties Orders were binding and ensured that Labour Courts retained jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes. The petitioner’s reliance on Section 51 was misplaced, as the provision contemplated the existence of new Tribunals to which cases could be transferred. Since no new Tribunals had been constituted, the Labour Court’s jurisdiction remained intact.

6. Section 24 CPC: The Court held that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which empowers courts to transfer cases, could not be invoked in isolation. The power to transfer must be accompanied by the existence of a competent forum to receive the transferred cases. Since no new Tribunals existed, the power under Section 24 CPC was unavailable.

7. Special Statutes: The Court noted that Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are creatures of special statutes like the ID Act and the IR Code. The transfer of proceedings under such statutes is governed by specific provisions (Section 33B(1) of the ID Act and Section 92(1) of the IR Code), not by Section 24 CPC.

"The notifications dated 08.12.2025 and 02.02.2026 issued by the Central Government clarifies that existing Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals as well as all the existing statutory authorities under the repealed statutes shall continue to function until the appointment of corresponding authorities under the Code in order to ensure continuity of functions and avoid any legal or administrative vacuum."

The Verdict

The Karnataka High Court dismissed all the petitions (C.P. No.100040/2026 and connected petitions). The Court held that:

1. The Labour Court, Hubballi, retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial disputes pending before it, notwithstanding the repeal of the ID Act.
2. The Removal of Difficulties Orders issued under Section 103 of the IR Code ensured continuity of adjudicatory functions by existing authorities.
3. Section 51 of the IR Code could not operate to strip the Labour Court of its jurisdiction in the absence of newly constituted Tribunals.
4. The petitioner’s attempt to transfer the cases was premature and unsustainable under law.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Continuity of Adjudicatory Functions

• Existing Authorities Retain Jurisdiction: The judgment reaffirms that Labour Courts and other statutory authorities constituted under repealed statutes continue to function until new authorities are constituted under the IR Code. This principle ensures that there is no vacuum in adjudicatory functions during legislative transitions.
• Removal of Difficulties Orders Are Binding: Practitioners must take note of Removal of Difficulties Orders issued under Section 103 of the IR Code. These orders clarify the legal position during transitional phases and are binding on courts.

Limits of Section 24 CPC

• Transfer Power Cannot Be Invoked in Isolation: Section 24 CPC cannot be used to transfer cases unless there is a competent forum to receive them. In the absence of newly constituted Tribunals under the IR Code, the power under Section 24 CPC is unavailable.
• Special Statutes Govern Transfers: The transfer of proceedings under special statutes like the ID Act or the IR Code is governed by specific provisions (Section 33B(1) of the ID Act and Section 92(1) of the IR Code), not by Section 24 CPC.

Strategic Litigation Considerations

• Delay Tactics Will Not Succeed: Courts are unlikely to entertain petitions aimed at delaying proceedings, especially when earlier orders have directed expedited disposal of disputes.

• Judicial Precedent Must Be Distinguished: Practitioners must carefully analyze judicial precedents to distinguish cases where the legal position has been clarified by subsequent notifications or orders. Blind reliance on earlier judgments may lead to adverse outcomes.

• Key Takeaways for Practitioners:

  • Always check for Removal of Difficulties Orders or notifications issued under transitional provisions of new statutes.
  • Ensure that transfer petitions are grounded in specific statutory provisions rather than general powers like Section 24 CPC.
  • Argue for continuity of jurisdiction where notifications explicitly provide for the same.
  • Avoid filing petitions that could be perceived as delay tactics, as courts may dismiss them summarily.