Introduction
Mr S Ravindran, Senior Advocate, Madras High Court is a labour law practitioner since 1980, delivers an unfiltered analysis of India’s Industrial Relations Code 2025, challenging popular narratives and offering practical insights from decades of courtroom experience. This was part of a special session on the New Labour Codes.
When Matthew first offered me the subject of wages, I declined—it seemed disinteresting. But when he mentioned the IR Code was available, I accepted with two conditions: the session must be on Saturday, and it should be my first slot. I’ve been practicing labour law since 1980, and I’ve watched this field evolve significantly.
The code was introduced on February 11, 2025, yet I only learned about it through a client after checking the public information bureau. A full-page Prime Minister advertisement followed, which probably triggered the wild opposition. I listened to well-informed union leaders tearing this code apart, along with management spokespersons, and realized something was terribly wrong with our understanding.
Labour is a concurrent subject under our Constitution’s Seventh Schedule, meaning both central and state governments can legislate. Fortunately, there’s been no repugnancy between them. The central government has been slow—it took fifty years from 1929 to 1979, then forty years until 2019. This code should have happened in 1990 when our economy liberalized and became globally competitive. Yet labour law changes rarely. The 2004 Supreme Court judgment noted that labour laws were outdated, particularly regarding retrenchment. Justice Anil Singh’s 2019 order stated it was high time labour law was overhauled. This has been long overdue.
Fixed-Term Employment
Union leaders claim this provision eliminates employment protection and enables arbitrary “hire and fire” decisions. This is theoretically and factually wrong. Fixed-term employment without that title has existed since 1984 through an amendment allowing termination based on appointment order clauses. From 1984 to 2025, where is the data showing large-scale misuse? In industrial areas like Chengalpattu and Kanchipuram, only 85 termination cases were filed in the entire year. Fifteen states have already incorporated this provision—what opposition exists there? Nothing.
However, don’t be trigger-happy. The Supreme Court established that when legislation grants power, that power requires good faith exercise. You can use fixed-term employment, but your good faith will be questioned. Whether you’re replacing workers annually or substituting one person for another—that will be tested. The government’s claim that this replaces contract labour is incorrect. Fixed-term employment requires equal wages and benefits, gradually increasing welfare. Given financial implications, companies won’t abolish contract labour.
Strikes
Union leaders claim we’ve lost the right to strike. We are indeed a strike-loving country—lawyers frequently strike, and currently there’s a strike in district courts against e-filing. But it’s high time our workforce understands that strike days are gone. We need disciplined, skilled labour. Our claims about becoming the fourth-largest economy are undermined by large-scale unskilled labour, frequent absenteeism, and strikes. China became the workshop of the world with strict labour controls and no strikes.
The Supreme Court has stated you have no fundamental right to strike. Strike means simply withdrawing labour—not preventing willing workers, blocking goods, or obstructing premises. The Madras High Court called such conduct hooliganism. Judgments require strikers to remain 500 meters away and prevent no one. Strike is not the powerful weapon workers imagine. This amendment has made that reality more emphatic.
Retrenchment and Layoff
The code pushes the threshold from 100 to 300 workers, inviting negative reaction. But this has history. In 1976, this was first introduced during industrial unrest when government thought management acted whimsically. The amendment was later struck down on procedural grounds. In 1984, it was reintroduced at the 100-worker level and has been in force since 1991. Now we’ve returned to the 1976 position.
Why should I need government permission to reduce manpower after complying with factory and labour laws? When COVID-19 struck, did I need permission? When Trump’s tariffs affect exporters, should they need permission? The government doesn’t grant it anyway. I’ve seen cases where government rejected permission, claiming other companies would apply. Industries then became bankrupt, leading to litigation over asset distribution. This two-tier system is unnecessary. I’m ready to go to court instead of bureaucracy—would the opposition accept judicial oversight?
Conciliation
The conciliation system has lost neutrality. Labour officers are intimidated to favor workers from day one. When I attended recruitment interviews, every candidate said they would look only to workers’ welfare. This shows inherent bias. The system has become a waste of time and nuisance. The positive change is that you no longer wait endlessly before conciliation officers. If your appointment is at 2 p.m., proceedings won’t occur at 5 p.m. After marking attendance for 45 days, conciliation automatically ends—a big relief. Also, unions can now litigate directly without awaiting government reference. Previously, the logic was that the fight between worker and management wasn’t equal. This will result in less settlement and more litigation, which isn’t ideal. Litigation should be the last resort.
Tribunals
I’m completely upset with tribunals replacing labour courts. We have four labour courts in Chennai without sufficient work. The tribunal system, especially with administrative members, is nightmarish for litigants. Administrative posts are always favors for bureaucrats unlikely to understand labour law. If two tribunal members disagree, they refer to a third officer, making it two versus one—the most backward amendment I’ve encountered. Workers get restless waiting for cases. Management faces PF fraud cases pending from 2014 to 2025, accumulating interest and damages. This system disadvantages both parties and should be withdrawn.
Standing Orders and Union Recognition
Standing orders legislation is practically dead. The threshold increased from 100 to 300 without clear justification. Fortunately, being concurrent, states can correct this. On union recognition, the lack of law since 1926 hasn’t helped anyone. If a union achieves 51% membership, they should be the recognized bargaining agent for three to five years. This brings orderliness. Currently, management chooses friendly unions and ignores others, creating letterpad unions and chaos.
I fully support this code despite certain misgivings. The meekness of our government has finally ended. Let’s ensure good faith implementation and welcome these reforms with the disciplined, skilled workforce this era demands.
Questions and Answers
Q: If these codes are good for employees, why are some unions opposing and calling for strike?
Union leaders who are well-read and well-informed are also opposing it, not knowing that we are in 2025, no longer in the 1960s. Union leaders have a duty to educate workmen that we should work hard and not frequently go on strike. Good, bad, ugly—we do not know. Let us see in due course.
Q: How does fixed-term employment interact with Tamil Nadu’s permanent status act requiring permanency after 480 days?
If you have fixed term for 3 years, after 480 days it becomes permanent under state law. The central government has not annulled or repealed any state laws because they cannot. Both operate on different fields. Fixed term gives all benefits of permanent workmen, but the day you are born, your date of death is also fixed—that’s all.
Q: Will the criterion for recognition affect collective bargaining in multi-union scenarios?
It cures the rivalry. Show 51% strength and you will be the bargaining agent. If you don’t have 51%, and you have 20%, your life is 3 or 5 years. You should welcome that.
Q: How will the new IR code improve non-manufacturing organizations like IT industry?
Nothing. IT industry is in a different world. They think none of the labour laws are applicable, and employees also think so. That’s why we see very few IT-related cases in reported judgments. So it is not subject to labour laws in practical terms.
