Delhi High Court Raps Central Govt for New Industrial Relations Code without properly repealing earlier laws

Criticism of the Judiciary towards poor execution.

The Central Government has been severely criticized by the Delhi High Court on its implementation of the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020. There was widespread dissatisfaction among a division bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya on how the code was notified. The court noted that the new law was implemented by the government without repealing the old laws. This has caused a lot of confusion in the law and technological fields. The judges indicated that such mass shift needs thorough planning which was apparently lacking.

The court was dealing with a public interest case, which demonstrated the flaws in procedure of the notification of the government dated November 21, 2025. The petitioners claimed that the abrupt implementation of the code was a legal vacuum. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela who was also a member of the bench also questioned the purpose of hurrying the process. The court described the scenario as an effect that paryzed the administration of justice to the workers. T

In the proceedings, the court reported the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 had not been repealed by a special notification. This technical success meant that there could be two legal regimes in conflict with each other at the same time. The judges criticized the government counsel on the lack of foresight on such complications. 

The Crisis of Non-Existing Tribunals.

The status of pending legal cases was the key concern that was brought up during the hearing. According to the new code of Industrial Relations, all the pending disputes will be handed over to the new Industrial Tribunals. The petition however indicated that these new tribunals have not yet been constituted by the government. This formed a weird scenario in which the cases would be legally obliged to proceed to a forum that does not even exist. This is one of the aspects of the implementation that the court found especially problematic and not quite logical.

Labour union lawyers claimed that the whole adjudicatory mechanism was grounded. The employees who had disputes that were still pending were left in limbo to have no court to resolve them. The new notification technically deprived the existing labour courts of their jurisdiction. This interference in effect deprived thousands of employees of their right to justice and speedily. The bench raised the question as to how the government could have ignored such an important aspect of operations.

There were also no guidelines on the qualification of the tribunal members which complicated the situation even more. In the absence of these rules, the new bodies cannot be elected or appointed by the government to the new bodies. The High Court noted that the cart had been put after the horse. They said that the infrastructure and rules ought to have been there before the notification of the code. This dislocation points to a critical lack of touch with policy on one hand and the actual practice on the ground on the other.

Damage Control efforts by Government.

The Central Government confessed to the practical difficulties as confronted by the hard questions of the court. The Additional Solicitor General representing the Centre told the court that a correctional measure had been made in the recent past. He referred to one of the notifications dated December 8, 2025, which talked about the elimination of the difficulties to solve the crisis. This was a late notice in an effort to cover the legal lapses that had been established through the first roll. The government promised the court that the legal vacuum was not intended and that it was in correction.

The new order of the government makes it clear that the current labour courts and tribunals would still be in operation. They are allowed to hear pending and new cases until the new tribunals are established. This action is aimed at providing continuity to the judicial process of industrial disputes. The Centre requested this interim arrangement so as not to subject the litigants to any form of injustice. The court was content with this offer but cautioned that these retro-fixes are not the best form of governing.

The bench ordered the government to popularize this clarification to eliminate doubts. They emphasized that all the labour courts in the nation should understand that they still retain jurisdiction. The government assured to ease the process and hasten the establishment of the new tribunals. They also undertook to complete the regulations on the appointment of tribunal members within the near future. This was a relief to the legal fraternity and the workers concerned in the short run.

Effects on the Industrial Ecosystem.

The misunderstanding of the repeal and implementation has been felt in the industrial sector. Human resource managers and employers have been struggling over determining the compliance norms to be used. The ambiguity of the old Industrial Disputes Act about its validity gave a nightmare to the companies as far as compliance was concerned. There were numerous companies that halted disciplinary action and dispute resolutions since the law was unclear. The step taken by the court has brought a bit of clarity at this point, but the first blow of mistrust has been dealt.

The chaos caused by the sudden notification has been the most vocal point by the trade unions. They claim that the rights of workers are threatened in case the legal system is unpredictable. There were no clear-cut laws on retrenchment and strike during the transition period and this led to anxiety among the employees. The leaders of unions believe that the government was more concerned with the announcement and not the real preparedness of the system. This incidence has further worsened the already bad relationship between unions and the government.