If you advise on Indian employment law, or run HR in India, you have a shelf of authority built over seventy years — Bangalore Water Supply on what counts as an industry, a long line on who is a workman, the whole jurisprudence on what a fair domestic inquiry looks like. On 21 November 2025 the statutes those judgments interpreted were repealed.
So: is any of it still good law?
Mostly yes — and the reason matters, because it tells you which parts survived and which did not. This page sets out the transition as it actually happened (which was considerably messier than the press coverage suggested), the section-by-section map from the old Acts to the new Codes, and the test for whether a given judgment still binds.
| Old judgments still good law? | Where the language was carried forward — yes |
| Pending cases and accrued rights | Saved — s.6, General Clauses Act, 1897 |
| Old Labour Courts and Tribunals | Still functioning, under s.104(1A) |
| Where precedent does not survive | Changed thresholds and changed definitions |
| Limitation to approach the Tribunal | 2 years from termination — s.4(11) |
Position stated as at July 2026. The transitional position is being litigated and is still developing; verify before relying on any of this in a live matter.
What actually happened, in order
The commencement was not clean. The Code came into force before the statutes it replaced were repealed, which produced a ten-week window in which both regimes arguably operated. That window is now the subject of litigation.
| Date | What happened | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| 21 Nov 2025 | Notification S.O. 5320(E) brings the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 into force | But the notification did not invoke the repeal clause in s.104. The subsumed Acts continued to operate alongside the Code. |
| 8 Dec 2025 | Notification S.O. 5683(E) — Industrial Relations Code (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2025 | Clarifies that existing Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunals continue to adjudicate. |
| 7 Jan 2026 | M.K. Suresh Kumar v Union of India filed in the Kerala High Court | The Removal of Difficulties Order challenged as ultra vires ss.103, 44(7) and 51 of the Code. |
| 2 Feb 2026 | Notifications S.O. 464(E) and S.O. 465(E) | Retrospectively repeal the subsumed Acts with effect from 21 November 2025, and permit existing authorities to function until new bodies are constituted. This creates the validity problem for anything done in the intervening window. |
| 16 Feb 2026 | Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 | Substitutes s.104. Sub-section (1) confirms the repeal of the Trade Unions Act 1926, the Standing Orders Act 1946 and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. New sub-section (1A) provides that notwithstanding the repeal, Tribunals and statutory authorities under the repealed Acts continue to function until the corresponding bodies become functional under the Code. |
| 17 Feb 2026 | Kerala High Court decides M.K. Suresh Kumar (2026:KER:14042) | Holds the 8 December 2025 notification is not ultra vires; letting existing mechanisms continue until new ones are in place does not sidestep the Code. |
| 2026 | Glastronix LLP v Glastronix Karmika Sangha, WP No. 3784 of 2026, Karnataka High Court (2026:KHC:7984) | A reference made under s.10 of the ID Act on 19 December 2025 — inside the window — was challenged. The Court held s.6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saved it, that legacy Tribunals and Labour Courts retain jurisdiction until the Code's Tribunals are constituted, and that "statutory authorities" in s.104(1A) includes Labour Courts. |
Why the old judgments survive
Three independent reasons, and it is worth keeping them apart because they do different work.
1. The language was largely carried forward. This is the main one. A judgment interpreting a form of words continues to govern that form of words when Parliament re-enacts it. Section 70 of the Code reproduces the substance of s.25F of the ID Act almost exactly — one month's written notice indicating reasons or wages in lieu, fifteen days' average pay per completed year, notice to the appropriate Government. The definition of retrenchment in s.2(zh) reproduces s.2(oo), down to the carve-outs. The continuous-service deeming provision in s.66 reproduces s.25B, 240 days and all. Where the words are the same, the case law on those words is the same.
2. Section 104 savings. The repeal provision preserves things done under the repealed Acts, and s.104(1A) now expressly preserves the functioning of the old adjudicatory bodies during the transition.
3. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The default rule: repeal does not disturb anything previously done, any right or liability acquired or incurred, or any pending proceeding, unless a contrary intention appears. This is what the Karnataka High Court applied in Glastronix.
The section map
The practical tool. If your templates, policies or advice notes cite the old sections, this is the conversion table.
| Repealed | Subject | Industrial Relations Code, 2020 | Precedent carries over? |
|---|---|---|---|
| ID Act s.2(j) | "Industry" | s.2(p) | Partly — see the caution below |
| ID Act s.2(oo) | "Retrenchment" | s.2(zh) | Yes — substantially reproduced, including the disciplinary-action carve-out |
| ID Act s.2(s) | "Workman" / "Worker" | s.2(zr) | The test yes, the threshold no |
| ID Act s.11A | Tribunal's power to set aside dismissal and substitute a lesser punishment | s.50 | Yes |
| ID Act s.25B | Continuous service (240 days) | s.66 | Yes |
| ID Act s.25C | Lay-off compensation | s.67 | Yes |
| ID Act s.25F | Conditions precedent to retrenchment | s.70 | Yes |
| ID Act s.25G | Last-come, first-go | s.71 | Yes |
| ID Act s.25H | Re-employment of retrenched workers | s.72 | Yes |
| ID Act s.25N | Prior permission for retrenchment | s.79 (applicability set by s.77) | Reasoning yes, threshold no — 100 became 300 |
| Standing Orders Act, 1946 | Certification, model standing orders, misconduct | Chapter IV, ss.28–39 | Yes on substance; applicability threshold changed to 300 |
| Trade Unions Act, 1926 | Registration, immunities | Chapter III, ss.5–27 | Largely yes; recognition machinery in s.14 is new |
Where precedent does not survive
Three categories. Everything else is presumptively still good.
| Category | Example | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Changed numbers | Any authority applying the 100-worker threshold for prior permission or for standing orders. The number is now 300. | The reasoning about what the threshold does still holds. The number does not. Check your state — states may notify a different figure. |
| Changed definitions | Authority on the old supervisory wage ceiling for "workman". Also the "industry" definition, which s.2(p) has now codified with express exclusions for charitable institutions, sovereign functions and domestic service. | Read the new text first. Old authority is useful on the underlying test but cannot displace an express statutory exclusion. |
| Genuinely new provisions | Fixed-term employment (ss.2(o), 30), the worker re-skilling fund (s.83), negotiating union recognition (s.14), the extended strike-notice regime (s.62). | No precedent exists. Expect the first wave of litigation here. |
What to do with your documents
- Run a find on your templates for "Industrial Disputes Act". Termination letters, retrenchment notices, settlement agreements, standing orders, employment contracts, board papers. Every one of those references now points at a repealed statute.
- Re-check every threshold. 100 became 300 for both standing orders and prior permission. Chapter IX lay-off provisions do not apply below 50 workers on average.
- Do not assume the state position matches the central one. Labour is a concurrent subject; states are notifying rules on their own timelines and may set different thresholds.
- Diarise anything dated between 21 Nov 2025 and 2 Feb 2026. References, certifications, registrations. Their validity currently rests on s.6 of the General Clauses Act and on High Court reasoning, not on an express validating provision.
- Note the two-year limitation. Under s.4(11), an application to the Tribunal in an individual termination case must be made within two years of the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. That clock is running on every exit you have processed since November 2025.
Where to go next
The operative rules that flow from all of this are set out separately: how to legally terminate an employee under the Code, retrenchment notice, compensation and the permission threshold, and the prior question of who counts as a "worker".
One practical consequence for record-keeping
The two-year limitation in s.4(11) and the 240-day continuous-service test in s.66 both mean that a claim arriving in 2027 will be decided on attendance, leave and payroll records from 2025. Records that were assembled from separate systems, and reconciled once at the time, are difficult to re-derive consistently two years later. Helion keeps attendance, leave, payroll and employment history on one database precisely so that a computation done today can be reproduced identically on the day someone asks for it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 still valid in India?
No. It stands repealed with effect from 21 November 2025, confirmed by notifications issued on 2 February 2026 and by the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 of 16 February 2026. Its subject matter is now in the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Do Supreme Court judgments under the old labour laws still apply?
Where the Code carries forward substantially the same language, yes — a judgment interpreting a form of words continues to govern that form of words when it is re-enacted. Where a definition or a threshold changed, the old authority is persuasive on the underlying reasoning but does not govern the changed element.
What happened to Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals?
They continue to function. Section 104(1A), inserted by the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, provides that notwithstanding the repeal, Tribunals and statutory authorities under the repealed Acts continue until the corresponding bodies under the Code become functional. The Karnataka High Court in Glastronix held that "statutory authorities" in that provision includes Labour Courts.
Are proceedings started under the old Act still valid?
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saves pending proceedings, accrued rights and things already done on a repeal, unless a contrary intention appears. The Karnataka High Court applied it to uphold a reference made under Section 10 of the ID Act in December 2025. There is no express validating clause in the Code covering the 21 November 2025 to 2 February 2026 window, so the protection is the general one rather than a specific one.
Did the definition of "industry" change?
Yes. Section 2(p) codifies the definition and adds express exclusions — institutions wholly or substantially engaged in charitable, social or philanthropic service, sovereign functions of government including defence research, atomic energy and space, domestic service, and any activity the Central Government notifies. Older authority that brought such bodies within the definition does not survive an express statutory exclusion.
Which old section is now which new section?
The main conversions: s.25F to s.70, s.25G to s.71, s.25H to s.72, s.25N to s.79 (with applicability set by s.77), s.25B to s.66, s.25C to s.67, s.11A to s.50, s.2(s) to s.2(zr), and s.2(oo) to s.2(zh). The Standing Orders Act is now Chapter IV and the Trade Unions Act is now Chapter III.
How long does an employee have to challenge a termination?
Under Section 4(11), an application to the Tribunal in respect of a discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or other termination of an individual worker must be made before the expiry of two years from the date of that termination.