• Strike threat withdrawn after Deputy Min. announces programme suspension
• SLR currently operates with around 247 locomotive drivers
• Defence Ministry confirms no directive received on proposed foreign training
• Transport officials cite severe driver shortage, need for emergency reserve force

The Sri Lanka Railways (SLR) is currently facing a policy standstill after a Government decision to train 20 military personnel as locomotive drivers was suspended following severe trade union backlash.

On 17 February, the Locomotive Operating Engineers’ Union threatened to launch a strike from midnight, protesting the inclusion of Army personnel in a training programme for newly recruited train drivers. 

The planned strike was called off late that night after Deputy Minister of Transport and Highways Dr. Prasanna Gunasena announced a suspension of the military training programme. The suspension was enacted to ensure uninterrupted transport for nearly 450,000 students sitting for the GCE Ordinary Level Examination.

During his announcement, the Deputy Minister criticised the trade union action, highlighting the extensive support provided by the Sri Lanka Army in repairing railway tracks and restoring train engines during the recent Cyclone Ditwah crisis. He further suggested that military officers would be sent abroad for training to bypass local trade union objections.

This is not the first instance a government has mooted the creation of a ‘reserve’ of military personnel – trained to undertake critical national services in the event of prolonged trade union disruptions or other contingencies. However, on each occasion the State had backed down, only using the threat of such a reserve to gain leverage, lacking the required political will to build national resilience where necessary.

However, despite these public announcements suggesting that military officers will be sent abroad for training, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that no such plans have yet been communicated to it.

Ministry of Defence Spokesperson Brigadier Franklin Joseph confirmed that the military involvement in the railway training programme was on hold. “We have not received any confirmation regarding that. Earlier, the military wanted to incorporate our personnel and participate in the training. However, the proposal was refused and we received instructions not to send anyone for the training,” Joseph stated.

When asked specifically about the subsequent statements regarding foreign training for military officers, Joseph maintained a firm stance that no such directive had been officially communicated. 

This position was supported by a senior official at the Ministry of Transport, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official acknowledged the suspension of the programme and clarified that the foreign training initiative remained merely an idea rather than official policy. “Currently, no future action plan regarding sending the officers abroad has been discussed,” the official noted.

Ministry of Transport’s justification

The Ministry of Transport attributes the initial decision to a severe shortage of locomotive drivers and the necessity of having a reserve force during national crises. The senior official detailed the circumstances that had led to the initial deployment of military personnel for railway assistance.

“Following Cyclone Ditwah, we received the assistance of the Army for every task involving the railway, including track rehabilitation, clearing broken rails, and removing fallen earth. They arrived to help, considering the situation a national disaster and a necessity,” the official said.

The official elaborated on the acute material shortages in the department and the ongoing military assistance in engineering tasks. “The railway engine fleet is currently experiencing severe breakdowns. To address this, around 10–13 Army officers are presently stationed at the Ratmalana workshop, assisting with repairs to fans, lights, and passenger coaches,” the official added.

Regarding the specific attempt to train engine drivers, the official clarified the timeline and the reasoning behind selecting military candidates to join routine sessions. 

“As a joint decision by the Army and the Government, we have recruited new Army engine drivers. Initially, we recruited 76, followed by another 30. They received their appointment letters on 3 February and were required to report to work within 14 days. They reported on 16 February to begin training. Concurrently, we decided to select 20 qualified individuals from the Army to train alongside the regular ongoing intake,” the official explained.

The motivation was strictly to establish a contingency plan for emergencies during which regular transport becomes unavailable. “In the event of a sudden emergency, such as the damage caused during the recent disaster, situations arise where coaches are stranded in unreachable locations like the stretch between Nawalapitiya and Watawala. During the disaster, communications failed and transport was halted, yet Army forces successfully reached those areas to address public needs. The decision to train 20 personnel was made with the intention of utilising them during similar emergencies,” the official remarked.

They highlighted the logistical difficulty of organising separate, non-routine training sessions for reserve drivers. “We currently lack alternative avenues to source the expertise required to operate a Railways Department engine. It is not taught as a university course, and technical colleges do not provide this specific training. Therefore, we attempted to add 20 personnel to a routine, scheduled departmental training. 

“Organising separate training sessions later would require creating special slots, securing lecturers, and allocating engines, which presents numerous administrative hurdles. Now that the programme is temporarily suspended, we hope to hold broad discussions before making future decisions,” the official said.

The official also addressed trade union claims that ad hoc training was insufficient for public safety, pointing out the administrative hurdles the department faced with the current driver workforce. 

“The engine drivers initiated a strike immediately after our decision. Since training an engine driver takes approximately three-and-a-half years, the military personnel could have been scheduled for a later intake, but we opted to step back. 

“A crucial point often forgotten is the necessity for continuous training. With only around 247 drivers currently with the railways, scheduling mandatory single-day Efficiency Bar Examinations often results in the cancellation of over 40 trains. In such instances, a reserve force could be highly beneficial for both the drivers and the general public,” the official asserted.

TU opposition and legal arguments

The Locomotive Operating Engineers’ Union vehemently opposes the integration of military personnel into training programmes, citing strict State service protocols.

Union Secretary S.R.C.M. Senanayake outlined the core legal and procedural arguments against the Government initiative. “There are several reasons for this issue to arise. The primary reason is that there is a strict recruitment procedure for everyone in the State service,” he explained.

Senanayake detailed the exhaustive nature of this statutory procedure. “The State service recruitment procedure explicitly outlines how a railway engine driver should be recruited, stipulating age limits and educational qualifications, alongside career progression and retirement protocols. This applies universally across the State service, whether for doctors, nurses, or engine drivers. A minister cannot arbitrarily decide to deploy the Army or any other individual outside this procedure, and as such, this act constitutes a direct violation of the law,” he argued.

The union views the deployment of military personnel outside the standard gazetted recruitment process as entirely unlawful. “Whether the Minister was aware or not, the actions taken were illegal. Deploying a group to be trained outside the established recruitment procedure is an action he has no right to execute, rendering it entirely contrary to the law,” Senanayake claimed.

He elaborated on the highly specific qualifications required to become an engine driver to ensure the safety of the public. “Every profession within the State service is protected by these conditions. To become an engine driver, an applicant must possess a mechanical engineering diploma, such as a National Diploma in Technology or a National Diploma in Engineering Sciences. 

“Following a gazette notification, applicants under 30 years of age undergo a rigorous selection process involving examinations and interviews. Successful candidates complete three years of training, a practical driving test, and multiple written exams before officially qualifying as drivers,” Senanayake detailed.

He insisted on clear legal boundaries to prevent administrative clashes. “We all have great respect for those in the Army, as they do a lot for the country. However, bringing them into conflict with State service employees, especially when working in a civilian institution, creates the potential to clash with the law. Therefore, they should work strictly within that legal framework,” he observed.

He further provided a definitive pathway for military personnel to join the railways legally. “If the intention is to deploy Army personnel, it must be noted that State service laws prohibit serving in two State positions simultaneously. Qualified military personnel must resign from Army service, apply through the standard gazette process, and complete the designated training. We would raise no objections to such a process, as it adheres strictly to the legal framework,” Senanayake noted.

Expert insights and historical context

Former General Manager of SLR Priyal De Silva offered a broader historical and administrative perspective on the conflict. Having managed the railways during similar crises, he understands both the administrative burden of sudden strikes and the complexities of driver training.

“Engine drivers undergo a significantly prolonged training period. When I assumed the role of General Manager of Railways in 2001, the training lasted four years. I argued that since my own engineering training took four years, its programme could be condensed to two years. Following considerable debate, the period was reduced to two years, but my successors subsequently increased it back to three years. In most other countries, driver training takes only two years,” De Silva said.

He discussed the introduction of modern simulator technology to expedite training. “During a two-year training programme, candidates utilise a simulator. A simulator replicates the experience of operating a locomotive, displaying vital information such as level crossings, stations, track points, and signals. Trainees learn speed regulation, acceleration, and signal observation. However, our current method involves physical training on a running locomotive alongside an instructor versed in track and locomotive operations,” De Silva explained.

The former General Manager further recounted the procurement of the simulator following a visit to India. “When I visited India with the Minister of Transport in 2003, we were shown a simulator by the Indian Railways, and we decided to purchase one immediately. Following various tendering processes and Government funding, the simulator was ordered around 2009 or 2010. It arrived very recently and is now housed at the Sri Lanka German Railway Technical Training Centre in Ratmalana. Drivers are currently going there for training,” he added.

De Silva supports the Government’s attempt to build a reserve force to counteract strikes, pointing out the severe disruption caused to civil life. “Drivers provide an essential public service, and any intention to strike must be preceded by formal notice to the department. Trade unions must demonstrate a deeper understanding of their societal responsibilities rather than abruptly cancelling trains. 

“The Government initiative to train Army officers to maintain services during strikes is highly reasonable, and I fully support it. During my tenure, I proposed training a reserve force of Army officers in India, though the plan did not materialise. The current objections stem from the Government duplicating this training locally using the new simulator,” he asserted.

Reflecting on his tenure, De Silva shared a historical precedent of handling unannounced strikes. “During my tenure, when the drivers went on strike, I ran the service myself. I managed to run 25 trains on the first day, 75 on the second, and 125 by the third day. By the fourth day, the striking drivers returned to work on their own accord. Running a limited number of trains during a strike can antagonise striking drivers, posing a risk of sabotage. To prevent this, I deployed Army personnel to accompany the driver, the retired driver, and the guard on the locomotive to ensure the train’s protection,” he recalled.

De Silva also raised a critical point regarding public access to locomotive training, framing it as a matter of equal opportunity. “Any member of the public can obtain a commercial pilot licence to fly a plane, yet there is no avenue for a civilian to be trained to drive a train. This is a severe restriction. The railways should extend this training opportunity to the public, enabling them to potentially seek employment abroad,” he pointed out.

The economics of foreign training

Regarding the incumbent Minister’s proposal to train military officers abroad, De Silva views it as a sound financial and administrative investment for national stability. 

“The financial investment in training is marginal compared to the substantial returns it yields during national emergencies. Establishing a trained reserve force is essential. When drivers strike without warning, the public suffers immensely. Commuters rely on trains for their daily transit, and sudden cancellations are unbearable. The Government has an obligation to step in and maintain the service,” he said.

De Silva concluded by emphasising the balance between legitimate trade union rights and overarching public duty. 

“While trade unionism is a vital democratic right, unions hold a strict responsibility to issue strike notices and minimise public inconvenience. The failure of the union to uphold this responsibility has prompted the Government to consider training a reserve force abroad. The required training, encompassing safety rules, block regulations, and operating instructions, is rigorously provided by experienced trainers,” he said.