Driver an employee, says HC, fines Ola ₹5.5L for inaction on abuse plaint
Vasantha.Kumar@timesofindia.com 02.10.2024
Bengaluru : In a landmark judgment, Karnataka high court has ruled that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act 2013), a driver-subscriber of a transport aggregator is to be considered as its “employee”. In view of this, the court ordered ride-hailing firm Ola to pay Rs 5 lakh as cost and an additional Rs 50,000 as litigation expenses to a woman petitioner-complainant for failing to act on her complaint.
Justice MGS Kamal, in his judgment delivered on Sept 30, 2024, rejected Ola’s contention that it is merely an “intermediary” and partially allowed the petition filed by a woman from Bengaluru. Furthermore, the judge directed Ola’s Internal Complaint Committee to conduct an inquiry into the complaint dated Sept 30, 2018, in accordance with the provisions of the PoSH Act, 2013, and submit the report to the district officer within 90 days.
The court also found the officers in charge of Karnataka State Transport Authority guilty of deliberate inaction and negligence in discharging their statutory obligations, imposing a penalty of Rs 1 lakh, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within 30 days.
‘No jurisdiction’, Firm, plaint panel claimed they had no jurisdiction to take action against driver
The case dates back to Aug 23, 2018, when the complainant, a regular user of Ola, booked a taxi through the platform to commute from her residence in Yelahanka to her office in JP Nagar here. During the ride, she noticed the driver staring at her through the rear-view mirror in an uncomfortable manner. Much to her shock and horror, she then saw him watching a pornographic video clip on his phone, even as he was masturbating. Despite her repeated requests to stop the vehicle, the driver refused and insisted on dropping her at her destination. She finally managed to exit the taxi only near her workplace.
Upon reaching office, the petitioner lodged a complaint against the driver on the Ola platform. However, although Ola executives informed her that the driver concerned had been “blacklisted” and would be sent for counselling and further training, the petitioner was not satisfied with the response and sought further action. Ola attempted to persuade her to close the complaint, but she remained firm in her demand for substantive punitive measures. Ola management and ICC claimed they had no jurisdiction to take any further action against the driver as there was no employer-employee relationship, and the actual perpetrator was an impostor who was not even authorised to drive the vehicle in question. However, the court rejected these arguments
No comments:
Post a Comment