Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Order Date: 17-09-2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Board, Indian Railways (New Delhi) represented by counsel S. Janarthanam.
- Respondent: General Secretary, All India Retired Station Masters Association (Regd.) No. CHETU-50-22-00013, represented by counsel L. Chandrakumar.
- Writ Petition No. 21473 of 2026 and WMP No. 23232 of 2026 filed under Article 226 seeking certiorari and mandamus to quash the Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. of 2025 in Industrial Dispute (I.D.) No. 81 of 2024 dated 22-12-2025 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court, Chennai, and to substitute the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai in place of the Chairman‑CEO Railway Board.
- The Industrial Dispute (I.D. No.81/2024) was initiated by the respondent seeking (i) grant of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits to retired Station Masters effective 01-09-2008, and (ii) extension of Night Duty Allowance to all Station Masters working between 22:00 and 06:00 irrespective of pay ceiling. The dispute culminated in Reference No.8(21)2024B4 300021497/ADJ/A1 dated 17-09-2024.
- Petitioner's Interlocutory Application argued that under Section 80(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 2(32) of the Railways Act, 1989, the General Manager of the concerned Zonal Railway (Southern Railway) is the appropriate party, not the Chairman‑CEO Railway Board.
- Respondent contended that because the relief sought affects the entire Railway establishment (16 Zonal Railways), the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of the Railway Department (Chairman‑CEO Railway Board) is the proper party, and cited Order I Rule 9 CPC regarding non‑joinder of a necessary party.
Court Reasoning
- The Court examined the statutory provisions: Section 80(1)(b) CPC mandates service on the General Manager of the railway concerned in suits against the Central Government relating to a railway; Section 2(32) Railways Act, 1989 defines “General Manager” accordingly.
- The Court noted Railway Board policy letters: Letter dated 15-10-1997 No.97/LC/Misc/97 and Order dated 28-07-2016 No.2014/LC/Misc/12, which direct deletion of the Chairman‑CEO’s name and substitution of the Zonal Railway General Manager when the former is impleaded.
- While recognising that joinder of the Chairman‑CEO does not prejudice the case, the Court held that for implementation of the relief, the General Manager of Southern Railway must be a necessary party under the cited statutes and policy.
Final Outcome
- The order dated 22-12-2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court in I.A. No. of 2025 is interfered with to the limited extent of directing the respondent to array the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-600 003 as a party, in accordance with Section 2(32) of the Railways Act, 1989.
- The writ petition is disposed of; no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Topics: Industrial Dispute, Railway Administration