• Legal Era India
  • Legal Era Global
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

HomeNewsFrom the Courts
13 Dec 2021 7:45 AM GMT

Supreme Court notice for the welfare of 'gig workers'

By Legal Era
Supreme Court notice for the welfare of gig workers

Supreme Court notice for the welfare of 'gig workers' Failure of the government to register them as 'unorganized workers' meant violation of their rights The Supreme Court has issued a notice for the social security rights of 'gig workers' employed by online food delivery, courier and tax aggregator applications, including Ola, Uber, Zomato and Swiggy. A bench comprising Justice...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans

Supreme Court notice for the welfare of 'gig workers'

Failure of the government to register them as 'unorganized workers' meant violation of their rights

The Supreme Court has issued a notice for the social security rights of 'gig workers' employed by online food delivery, courier and tax aggregator applications, including Ola, Uber, Zomato and Swiggy.

A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai issued a notice in the writ petition filed by the Indian Federation Of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT).

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Indira Jaising, submitted, "The drivers or delivery workers are actually workmen in the classical sense of the word. Worldwide, for Uber, they have been considered workers. The UK Supreme Court analyzed the contract (between Uber and the employee) that this is only a subterfuge and the real relationship is that of the employee and the employer."

The bench pointed out that the new legislation; Social Security Code 2020, passed by the Parliament contained a chapter dedicated to the welfare of the 'gig workers.'

Jaising said that the petitioners were seeking a declaration that gig workers were entitled to protection as 'unorganized workers' even under the pre-existing laws. She sought to declare 'gig workers' and 'app-based workers' as 'unorganized workers' and/or 'wage workers' within the Unorganized Workers Social Welfare Security Act, 2008.

The petition stated the failure of the State to register them as 'unorganized workers' or to provide their social security under the existing law meant violation of their rights under the Indian Constitution. It further said that denial of social security had resulted in their exploitation through forced labour.

They work in the 'informal economy' that accounts for one-third of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 70 percent of employment in an average developing country. The petitioners further sought for the formulation of schemes including health insurance, maternity benefits, pension, old age assistance, disability allowance and completion of vaccination at the aggregators' cost on a priority basis.

Emphasizing on the claims by the respondent companies (Ola Cabs, Uber, Swiggy, Zomato) that no contract of employment existed between them and the petitioners, and their relationship with the petitioners was in the nature of a partnership, the 'gig workers' contended that acceptance of such claims would be inconsistent with the purpose of the social welfare legislation.

Furthermore, it was claimed that the respondent companies owning the apps exercised complete supervision and control over the manner and method of work with those who were allowed to register on the said apps.

The 'gig workers' also stated that their employers called themselves 'aggregators' and entered into the so-called 'partnership agreement'. But it did not take away the fact that there existed a jural relationship of the employer and the employee; or master and servant. Thus, the contracts were merely a disguise for the nature of the relationship.

Arguing further, the petitioners said the contract by respondent companies was against the public policy, as they were fixed-term employment contracts of 'take it or leave it' policy. The workmen offering their services had no choice but to sign the same to earn their livelihood.

The petitioners sought directions to the aggregator companies to provide economic relief of Rs.1175 per day to the app-based workers and Rs.675 per day to app-based drivers in the nature of cash transfer until the end of this year or till the time the Covid-19 pandemic subsided.

They also sought relief for the extension of distribution of food grains under Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Ann Yojana to all app-based workers irrespective of whether they had ration cards or not.

The petitioners requested for issuance of directions to financial institutions, banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) to not seize and/or auction vehicles of the workers on their failure to pay EMI's of their loans and not impose penalties on them till the pandemic continued.

Click to download here Full PDF

Next Story
TAGS:
  • Supreme Court 
  • Justice L Nageswara Rao 
  • Justice BR Gavai 
  • Indira Jaising 
  • Indian Federation Of App Based Transport Workers 
Similar Posts
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2023© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X
We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok