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 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.