A Case Of Technology Being Disrupted?

Technology is known to cause disruption of

established businesses. However, the recent

agitation by Uber and Ola Cab drivers which

was waiting to happen for quite some time may

disrupt technology. India is the second country

after the United Kingdom in the world which would now

be compelled to resolve the tussle between technology and

labor. It is often said that technology trumps the law as a

number of techno issues arise from the fact that the existing

laws are not synced with evergrowing technology.

At the outset, it may be puzzling as to how the protest by

Cab drivers for minimum wages in any manner is related

to technology? It has been the stand of Uber Technologies

before the Employment Tribunal in UK

1 that it was a

technology firm not a transport business and that its drivers

were independent and self-employed contractors who were

free to choose where and when they worked. The Judges

however viewed the arguments of Uber with skepticism and

observed that the firm "resorting in its documentation to

fictions, twisted language and even brand new terminology"

and summed up by referring to Queen Gertrude's quote

"The

lady doth protest too much, methinks²."

The Employment

Tribunal rebuffed the arguments of Uber that it is only the

technology provider (Cab aggregator) and does not control

the drivers who are “self-employed”. The Judgment by the

Employment Tribunal was hailed by drivers as they were

guaranteed minimum service conditions; however, the

question remained on the viability of business models

where companies were using technology-based applications

for the benefit of the public at large. The present agitation

is only the tip of the iceberg waiting to explode as there

has been a mushrooming of app-based aggregators; be it

in food, transportation, housing, etc. The aggregators like

Airbnb and Stayzilla, etc. may also face similar kind of

protests.

Absence of unambiguous labor laws and whether the

traditional interpretation given to the said laws by the Court

would be able to keep up with technology are some of the

burning questions which concern the aggregators and start-

ups. There are also concerns about the applicability of labor

laws on "Self Controlled" and "Self-employed" workers

who may be working under somebody’s umbrella but still

control their own activities. Law will never be able to catch

up with technology as development and progress of each is

at uncontrollably contrasting velocities. We all know that

law takes not only its own course but also moves at its

own pace. In the year 1960, Gorden Moore, Co-founder of

Intel, predicted about exponential rise of integrated circuits

that the number of transistors that could fit on a chip.

Moore's prediction was his foresight for the rapid growth in

technology in near future which has been accurate till date.

Supreme Court back in year 2006 in the matter of

State of

Punjab versus Amritsar Beverages Limited³ made very

pertinent observations (in the context of Sales Tax Act 1948

but principles laid down can guide future legislations and

decisions of Courts). It held that:

"The Act was enacted in the year 1948. Information

Technology at that time far from being developed was

unknown. Constitution of India is a living organ. It had

been interpreted differently having regard to different

societal situations. [See Liverpool & London S.P. & I

Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Another, (2004)

9 SCC 512, Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and Another,

(2004) 2 SCC 510, John Vallamattom and Another v. Union

of India, (2003) 6 SCC 1, and Kapila Hingorani v. State

of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1] Same principle is applicable in

respect of some statutes.

Creative interpretation had been resorted to by the Court

so as to achieve a balance between age old and rigid laws

on the one hand and advanced technology, on the other.

The Judiciary always responds to the need of the changing

scenario in regard to development of technologies. It uses

its own interpretative principles to achieve a balance when

Parliament has not responded to the need to amend the

statute having regard to the developments in the field of

science.”

However, the courts should be able to shed their inherent

conservatism and be able to decide the cases within

reasonable timeframe before the technology becomes

obsolete. The first case concerning technology in work place

was decided in

"City of Ontario, California Versus Quon"

a case decided in the year 2010 that addressed the question

of privacy rights to the messages on the pagers given to

the Police officers by their employers – pager technology by

2010 had already become obsolete.

The ongoing agitation cannot be brushed away as it has

the potential of disrupting technology and consequently,

economic business models. It is important that the

Parliament carries out amendments in labor laws

imbibing technology-related issues and at the same time,

the Courts should endeavor to strike a balance between

the grant of minimum service conditions and growing

technology.

Footnote:
1. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk.

2. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the c.

1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been

used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to describe someone's overly frequent and vehement attempts to convince others of some matter of which the

opposite is true, thereby making themselves appear defensive and insincere.[not verified in body] In rhetorical terms, the phrase can be thought of as indicating

an unintentional apophasis—where the speaker who "protests too much" in favor of some assertion puts into others' minds the idea that the assertion is false,

something that they may not have considered before.

3. 2006(7)SCC607.

Disclaimer

– The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and are purely informative in nature.