Can Your Employer Fire You Without Hearing You? What Indian Law Says About Termination Rights
In most cases, no. The law requires fairness, especially when a decision affects your livelihood. Here’s how it works.
Industrial Disputes Act 1947
Explained | Why Kerala HC Upheld the 2026 Industrial Relations Code Amendment Allowing Existing Labour Tribunals to Continue
The Court clarified that Section 104(1-A), IR Code starts with a non-obstante clause, thereby enabling it to operate even if there is any contrary or inconsistent provision contained in the same statute.
Kerala HC upholds Centre’s notification on continuation of existing Labour Courts and Tribunals until new Code Tribunals are constituted
“Permitting existing adjudicatory mechanisms and statutory authorities to continue till new mechanisms are put in place cannot be said to be sidestepping the provisions of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 or removing obstacles to get over statutory restrictions.”
Repealing Provisions Revised Under the Industrial Relations Code
Govt has notified the Industrial Relations Code Amendment 2026 revising the repeal provisions and ensuring continuity of existing labour tribunals.
Industrial Relations Code (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2025 – Continuity of Adjudication for Pending Cases
The Industrial Relations Code (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2025 ensures smooth transition by transferring pending cases under old labour laws to corresponding tribunals under the new Code while maintaining adjudication continuity.
An Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause in an Employment Contract: Is It Actually a Case of Mighty Lion versus Timid Rabbit?
by Jeevan Ballav Panda*, Dhriti Mehta** and Tapamoy Ghose***
NCLAT issues notice in appeal against NCLT’s rejection of challenge to Lay-Off notice under Industrial Disputes Act
The main contention of the appellants is that the lay-off notice was not issued in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Workmen won’t be estopped from challenging retrenchment order if employer does not follow S. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh HC
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that workmen can challenge their retrenchment order even after accepting retrenchment amount in case their employer has not followed the mandate of S. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Delhi High Court denies regularisation request of a messenger boy of a Bank for not being appointed through a regular process
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Labour Court wherein it was held that since the messenger boy of a Bank was unable to establish that he moved an application for absorption in the service in pursuance of the Bipartite Settlement, therefore, he was not entitled to regularisation of service. Further, the Dehi High Court held that regularisation was not a matter of right and therefore, this Court could not direct the respondent Bank to regularize the services of the messenger boy.