The introduction of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, marked as Bill No. 33 of 2026, represents a significant legislative intervention aimed at consolidating the legal foundation of India’s labour reforms. Introduced in the Lok Sabha by Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, the Union Minister for Labour and Employment, the Bill specifically targets the “repeal and savings” provisions found in Section 104 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
The primary objective of this amendment is to clarify the legal mechanism through which three major legacy statutes the Trade Unions Act, 1926; the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are removed from the statute book. This legislative move is designed to transition the authority of repeal from a potential executive discretion to a definitive operation of law, thereby insulating the new labour framework from future judicial challenges regarding the delegation of legislative power.
The amendment is notable for its retrospective application, as Section 1(2) stipulates that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force from the 21st day of November 2025. This date is critical as it aligns with the broader operationalization of the four Labour Codes in India, which seek to replace a fragmented system of 29 central labour laws with a streamlined four-code structure. By backdating the commencement, the legislature ensures that all actions taken, orders passed, and notifications issued during the transitional period between late 2025 and early 2026 are legally validated under the new statutory regime.
Statutory Context and the Architecture of Section 104
The original Industrial Relations Code, 2020, was enacted to modernize industrial relations by subsuming and replacing three foundational acts. However, the drafting of Section 104(1) in the 2020 Code initially provided that the Central Government “may specify” through a notification that the provisions of the older acts would stand repealed.
This phrasing created a potential legal vulnerability. In Indian constitutional jurisprudence, the power to repeal a law is a core legislative function. While the legislature can delegate the power to determine the timing of an act’s commencement to the executive, delegating the power to repeal existing statutes can sometimes be characterized as an impermissible executive delegation if not framed correctly.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2026 Amendment explicitly acknowledges this risk, stating that while the repeal occurred by the operation of Section 104 itself, there was a possibility of future confusion being created on a “misconceived ground” that the Code delegated the power to repeal to the executive. To preempt such “unwarranted complications” and “avoidable litigation,” the government moved to substitute the wording of Section 104(1).
The new provision replaces the permissive “may specify” language with a direct and mandatory declaration that the three acts “shall stand repealed” on and from the date appointed in the notification issued under Section 1(3) of the Code. This shifts the source of the repeal from the executive notification (S.O. 465(E)) to the statute itself, ensuring that the repeal is an act of Parliament.
Detailed Analysis of the Repealed Statutes
The three acts being repealed represent a century of Indian labour history and provided the primary legal framework for industrial peace and worker protection prior to 2020. The 2026 Amendment completes the process of their statutory removal.
The Trade Unions Act 1926
The Trade Unions Act of 1926 was the oldest of the three, providing for the registration of trade unions and defining the law relating to registered unions. Under the 1926 Act, any seven or more members of a trade union could apply for registration, granting the union a legal corporate identity and providing its members and officers with immunity from certain civil and criminal liabilities during trade disputes. However, the 1926 Act was often criticized for its lack of a mandatory recognition mechanism for collective bargaining at the central level.
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, significantly changes this by introducing the concept of a “negotiating union” or “negotiating council”. Under the new Code, an employer is required to recognize a union as the sole negotiating union if it has at least 51% of the workers as its members. The 2026 Amendment ensures that the repeal of the 1926 Act is absolute, meaning that all new registrations and bargaining activities must now occur under the more stringent recognition norms of the 2020 Code.
The Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946
The 1946 Act was designed to minimize friction between employers and workers by requiring employers to define precisely the conditions of employment through “Standing Orders”. These orders covered matters such as shifts, attendance, leave, disciplinary action, and termination. Originally, this Act applied to all industrial establishments employing 100 or more workers.
The 2020 Code increases this applicability threshold to 300 workers, a move intended to improve the ease of doing business for smaller and medium-sized enterprises. The 2026 Amendment provides the legal finality needed for this change. By repealing the 1946 Act through the operation of law, the legislature removes the possibility of a court ruling that the 100-worker threshold still applies because the 1946 Act was not “correctly” repealed. This transition is essential for the 7.7 crore MSMEs in India, as it clearly defines their regulatory obligations regarding employment contracts and internal discipline.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 was the primary mechanism for the settlement of industrial disputes in India. It provided for a range of authorities, including Conciliation Officers, Boards of Conciliation, Courts of Inquiry, and Industrial Tribunals. It also established strict requirements for layoffs, retrenchment, and closure of undertakings, particularly under Chapter V-B, which required prior government permission for establishments with 100 or more workers.
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, consolidates these functions but, like the Standing Orders transition, increases the threshold for prior government permission for retrenchment to 300 workers. The 2026 Amendment solidifies this change by ensuring the 1947 Act is effectively terminated.
Furthermore, the new Code introduces the Worker Reskilling Fund, which mandates that employers contribute 15 days’ wages for every retrenched worker to assist in their transition back into the workforce. The 2026 Amendment ensures that this new benefit structure replaces the old system without a period of legal uncertainty where both laws might be claimed to coexist.
Administrative Continuity and Savings Provisions
A critical challenge in repealing century-old laws is maintaining the continuity of pending legal actions and the functioning of statutory authorities. Section 104 of the 2020 Code contains “savings” provisions designed to ensure that the repeal does not disrupt ongoing litigation or established rights. The 2026 Amendment reinforces these provisions by clarifying that the transition is a matter of statutory mandate.
Existing statutory authorities, such as the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are permitted to continue their functions until new authorities are formally established under the 2020 Code. This prevents a breakdown in the dispute resolution machinery, which is vital given that there are millions of industrial workers with active claims. The 2026 Amendment’s clarification of the repeal through the operation of law protects these transitional proceedings from being challenged on jurisdictional grounds.
Legal Significance of Notification S.O. 465(E)
Much of the legal discourse surrounding the 2026 Amendment centers on Notification No. S.O. 465(E), dated February 2, 2026. This notification was issued by the Central Government under the powers conferred by Section 1(3) and Section 104 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, to appoint the effective date for the Code and formalize the repeal of the legacy acts.
The 2026 Amendment was introduced because the government recognized that relying solely on this executive notification to effect a repeal of parliamentary statutes could be legally precarious. While S.O. 465(E) serves the administrative purpose of setting a date, the 2026 Amendment provides the underlying statutory force for the repeal itself.
This dual-layered approach where the executive sets the date and the legislature enacts the repeal is a classic method in Indian legislative drafting to ensure constitutional validity. The amendment specifically refers to S.O. 465(E) as the reference point for the timing of the repeal, while the Act itself performs the legal act of repealing.
Socio-Political Reactions and Union Opposition
Despite the technical and clarificatory nature of the 2026 Amendment, it has been met with significant resistance from central trade unions such as AITUC, CITU, and HMS. On February 12, 2026, the same day the Bill was passed in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, unions organized nationwide strikes and protests. The core of their opposition is not the technicality of the repeal but the substantive changes introduced by the 2020 Code that the amendment now finalizes.
Unions argue that the new framework weakens job security by increasing the thresholds for layoffs and retrenchment. They also claim that the new rules for strikes which require a 14-day notice period for all industrial establishments, not just public utility services effectively curtail the constitutional right to protest.
In the Rajya Sabha, Opposition Leader Mallikarjun Kharge accused the government of joining hands with corporate interests to “strangle labourers” by increasing working hours and threatening job security. The government, however, maintains that the reforms are necessary for economic growth and that the 2026 Amendment is merely a step to ensure these beneficial reforms are not held up by “future unwarranted complications”.
Retrospective Legislation and the November 21, 2025, Threshold
The decision to make the 2026 Amendment retrospective to November 21, 2025, is a strategic legal move. In Indian law, retrospective amendments are permissible, especially when they are clarificatory or procedural. Since the Labour Codes were essentially operationalized in late 2025, any legal challenge raised between November 2025 and the passage of the amendment in February 2026 would have targeted the “executive-led” repeal.
By deeming the amendment effective from November 2025, the legislature effectively erases the period of vulnerability. It means that, in the eyes of the law, the acts were always repealed by a statutory mandate from the moment the Code began. This provides a high degree of confidence for industries that have already modified their HR policies and for unions that have begun the process of re-registration or recognition under the new Code.
The Role of State Governments and Concurrent Powers
Because labour is a subject on the Concurrent List, the successful implementation of the Industrial Relations Code depends on the rules framed by the State Governments. By early 2026, many states had already begun this process. Tripura, for instance, issued its draft Industrial Relation Rules in early 2026. Karnataka similarly released updated draft rules, superseding its 2021 version to align with the finalized central framework. Rajasthan also published its rules in January 2026.
The 2026 Amendment provides these state-level reforms with a stable legal foundation. If the central repeal process had remained under a cloud of legal uncertainty, every state rule derived from the 2020 Code would have been equally vulnerable. The amendment ensures that when a state like Karnataka implements its specific procedures for electronic submissions or trade union verification, those procedures are built on a central statute that has been properly enacted and whose repeal mechanisms are legally sound.
Conclusion
The Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, serves as a vital corrective instrument that finalizes the transition of Indian industrial relations into a new statutory era. By substituting Section 104(1) of the 2020 Code, the legislature has proactively addressed potential constitutional challenges regarding the delegation of repeal powers to the executive. The shift to a repeal by the operation of law, deemed effective from November 21, 2025, provides the legal certainty required for a stable industrial environment.
While the amendment is technical in nature, its implications are vast, affecting the recognition of trade unions, the thresholds for employment conditions, and the adjudication of millions of industrial disputes. It reinforces the structural integrity of the broader labour code reforms, ensuring that the shift from legacy statutes to a unified framework is legally robust.
As India continues to integrate its past industrial practices with modern economic needs, the 2026 Amendment provides the necessary legal finality to move forward. The focus of stakeholders’ government, industry, and labour must now shift from the legality of the repeal to the effective and fair implementation of the new Code’s provisions, ensuring that the promised balance between economic growth and worker welfare is achieved.
The proposed amendments must be read alongside the broader Statutory Shift in India’s Labour Codes, 2025, as they further recalibrate the legal framework governing industrial relations, dispute resolution and collective bargaining.
