The Doctrine of Repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India applies only where there exists a direct, irreconcilable, and operative conflict between a law enacted by Parliament and a law enacted by a State Legislature on a subject falling within the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule. However, where Parliament or a competent statutory authority mandates a particular method of wage determination, classification, or restructuring, every employer and citizen is under a legal obligation to comply with such statutory requirements. The restructuring of wages or salaries undertaken in obedience to a statutory mandate is not a matter of contractual discretion, but an obligation arising “by operation of law” and/or the Parliament has granted “mandate” to Indian Citizen to make compliance from the date of notification. Therefore, there should be no confusion or ambiguity regarding the implementation of the Four Labour Codes within establishments. Employers are advised to align their wage structures and employment practices with the statutory framework so as to avoid future legal consequences, including liabilities relating to provident fund contributions, ESI, social security compliance, penalties, damages, interest, and other regulatory actions. Further, Parliament has introduced a uniform concept and definition of "wages" under the Labour Codes, including Section 2(y) of the Code on Wages, 2019 and Section 2(88) of the Code on Social Security, 2020. The State Governments are required to frame rules and administer the Codes within the constitutional and statutory framework laid down by Parliament, and they cannot adopt definitions that are inconsistent with the definitions enacted by Parliament. Likewise, under the Code on Wages, 2019, the Central Government is empowered to fix the National Floor Wage, and State Governments are required to ensure that the minimum rates of wages fixed by them are not lower than the National Floor Wage so notified by the Central Government. However, States retain the statutory power to prescribe higher minimum wages, depending upon local conditions and other relevant factors, provided that such rates are not below the National Floor Wage. Accordingly, where employers restructure wages or salaries to comply with the statutory definitions and requirements prescribed under the Labour Codes. Hence, establishments are merely implementing the mandate. Therefore, keeping in view the concept of the four Labour Codes and their implementation in Indian organizations, the following principles emerge:

1. Compliance with statutory mandates is paramount

Every employer is under a legal obligation to implement valid Parliamentary enactments and subordinate legislation that have come into force with effect from 21^st November’2025. Once the law prescribes a particular definition of wages, salary structure, social security contribution, or other statutory compliance requirements, the employer must give effect to the same. Such compliance cannot ordinarily be avoided on the basis of existing contractual arrangements, past practices, or administrative convenience.

2. Harmonious Construction must first be applied

Before invoking the Doctrine of Repugnancy under Article 254, the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction must be applied. Courts endeavour to interpret Central and State enactments in a manner that enables both to operate simultaneously. If compliance with both laws is reasonably possible, both must be given effect. Repugnancy is not to be readily inferred merely because two enactments deal with the same subject matter or adopt different regulatory approaches.

3. Repugnancy arises only in cases of actual and irreconcilable conflict

Article 254 becomes applicable only when:

• • Both laws relate to matters contained in the Concurrent List;
  • There exists a direct, clear, and irreconcilable inconsistency between them;
  • Compliance with one law necessarily results in the violation of the other; and
  • Parliament has manifested an intention to occupy the entire legislative field.

Mere differences in procedure, administration, or implementation do not amount to constitutional repugnancy. However , these 4 Labour Codes have been passed by the parliament ,and the Article 254(1) provides that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament on a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List, the Parliamentary law shall prevail, and the State law shall be void to the extent of such repugnancy. Thus, the Constitution maintains the supremacy of Parliamentary legislation in matters falling within the Concurrent List.

4. Salary Restructuring pursuant to law does not ordinarily attract Repugnancy

Where salary restructuring is undertaken to comply with statutory requirements—such as definitions of wages, social security obligations, provident fund liabilities, minimum wage provisions, or other mandatory labour standards—the employer is merely implementing the law as enacted by Parliament or a competent authority. In such circumstances, the Doctrine of Repugnancy is ordinarily not attracted unless a State enactment imposes a directly contradictory legal obligation that makes simultaneous compliance impossible. Therefore , the primary constitutional duty of the employer is implementation of the statutory mandate.

5. Legal Consequences arise by “Operation of Law” or the Parliament has given “Mandate” to make compliance

The employer's action in restructuring wages pursuant to statutory requirements is an act compelled by law rather than by managerial discretion.

Consequently:

• • The revised wage structure takes effect by operation of law;
  • Additional liabilities relating to Provident Fund, ESI, gratuity, bonus, or taxation may arise under the applicable statutes;
  • The employer merely implements the legislative mandate and does not create independent rights or obligations outside the statutory framework.

The Doctrine of Repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India:

The Doctrine of Repugnancy is embodied in Article 254 of the Constitution of India. It applies when a State law is inconsistent with a Parliamentary law enacted on a subject contained in the Concurrent List.

Meaning of Repugnancy:

Repugnancy arises when:

• • Parliament and the State Legislature legislate on the same subject in the Concurrent List;
  • The provisions of the two enactments are so inconsistent that they cannot operate simultaneously; and
  • Compliance with one law necessarily results in the breach of the other.

In such cases, the Parliamentary law prevails, and the State law becomes inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency.

Article 254(1)

Article 254(1) provides that where a State law is repugnant to a Parliamentary law relating to a Concurrent List subject, the Parliamentary law shall prevail, and the State law shall be void to the extent of such repugnancy.

Article 254(2): Exception

A State law may nevertheless prevail within that State if:

• • It has been reserved for the consideration of the President; and
  • It has received Presidential assent.

However, Parliament retains the constitutional power to amend, vary, or repeal such State legislation at any subsequent stage.

Judicial Principles governing repugnancy

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Doctrine of Repugnancy must be applied cautiously and only where an actual and irreconcilable conflict exists.

Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 648 ( 5 Judges)

The Supreme Court held that repugnancy arises where:

• • There is a direct conflict between the two laws;
  • Parliament intends to occupy the entire legislative field; or
  • The two enactments cannot operate simultaneously.

M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431 ( 5 Judges )

The Court laid down the classical tests of repugnancy:

• There must be a clear and direct inconsistency;
• The inconsistency must be absolutely irreconcilable;
• If both statutes can coexist, no repugnancy arises; and
• Parliamentary intention to occupy the entire field is a relevant consideration.

The Court emphasised that harmonious construction must be attempted before invoking Article 254.

Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45 ( 3 Judges)

The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 254 applies only where:

• Both enactments relate to matters in the Concurrent List; and
• There exists an actual and operative conflict between them.

Mere overlap or incidental encroachment does not attract the doctrine.

State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd., (2012) 7 SCC 106 ( 5 Judges)

The Supreme Court held that:

• Articles 246 and 254 must be read together;
• Repugnancy arises when Parliament occupies the entire field through comprehensive legislation;
• Inconsistent State laws become inoperative unless protected under Article 254(2);
• Courts must first attempt harmonious construction before declaring a State law void; and
• The constitutional framework seeks to preserve both Parliamentary supremacy and cooperative federalism.

The judgment reaffirms that harmonious construction is the rule, while repugnancy is a doctrine of last resort.

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction: The First Principle

Before invoking Article 254, courts apply the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, which requires that:

1. Every statute should be interpreted to give effect to both Central and State laws wherever possible.
2. Repugnancy should not be presumed merely because both laws regulate similar matters.
3. Only a direct, unavoidable, and irreconcilable conflict attracts Article 254.
4. If simultaneous compliance is possible, both enactments must continue to operate.
5. Constitutional interpretation must promote cooperative federalism and preserve legislative intent.

Thus, harmonious construction is the rule; repugnancy is the exception.

Application to the New Labour Codes:

The implementation of the New Labour Codes presents practical challenges because labour is a subject contained in the Concurrent List, and several State Shops and Establishments Acts continue to regulate employment conditions.

Potential areas of overlap include:

• • Working hours;
  • Weekly holidays;
  • Overtime calculations;
  • Leave provisions;
  • Employment of women during night shifts;
  • Welfare measures;
  • Registration requirements; and
  • Maintenance of statutory records.