Case Description
Tanvi Sinha v. Internal Complaints Committee & Ors.
Karnataka High Court
Case Type: Writ Petition
Case No.: WP 8127/2019
Date of Order: 09.08.2024
Bench: M.G. S Kamal, J.
Facts
- The petitioner hailed a cab from the respondent’s platform. Allegedly, during her ride, she saw that the driver was watching a pornographic video. He had placed his phone in a manner where she could see the screen as well. She had further alleged that the driver was masturbating to the video and even when she objected, he did not stop.
- Pursuant to the incident, she filed a complaint with the respondent. The respondent-company then informed her that they had taken an action against the driver by blacklisting him and had sent him for counselling. However, they did not adhere to her request of dealing with the complaint under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 (“Act”).
- Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court. In her petition, she sought the court’s direction obliging the respondent to investigate her complaint. Furthermore, she sought an order from Union Ministry of Women and Child Development for compelling the respondent company’s adherence to the Act.
- In furtherance, the petitioner requested the court to issue certain guidelines for safety of women and children while using taxi services.
Issues
- Whether the Internal Committee of intermediary platforms, like OLA, are responsible to deal with incidents of sexual harassment committed by drivers under their agreement?
- Whether intermediary platforms can be treated like employer and made responsible for actions of their drivers?
Laws Involved
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The respondent’s platform, OLA, acts as a transport service provider company and makes cab drivers available for the passengers. Therefore, they were responsible for the driver’s actions.
- Moreover, if the respondent had displayed a disclaimer that they shall not be responsible for their customers, the petitioner would not have availed their services.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Labour legislations do not apply on independent contractors like drivers, and thus, respondent cannot be considered as an employer.
- OLA is an intermediary platform that connect service seekers and service providers in relation to transport. It would be beyond logical measure to consider them as the employers in this case.
- The counsel for respondent also mentioned that they had decided against conducting an inquiry under the Act based on their external counsel’s advice.
- Lastly, the senior counsel also mentioned that the respondent had already taken action against the driver by blacklisting him. Hence, there should be no punitive damages ordered against the respondents.
Court’s Analysis
- The apathy and deliberate ignorance of the duty undertaken by those in-charge of affairs, who had the statutory obligation to discharge such duty, has shaken the conscience of the Court.
- Cab aggregators cannot compare itself with online marketplace like Amazon for in case of the latter, there is barely any scope for such allegations of sexual harassment.
- It appears to the court that the State (4th Respondent), which had framed the rules to govern over issues related to aggregators, motor vehicles, drivers, taxis, etc., has taken no stand on the matter.
Summary of Court’s Directions
- Respondents 1 & 2 were directed to furnish details of the external counsel who advised against dealing with the petitioner’s complaint.
- The Court directed the chairman of respondent 1 to submit details of the members of its Internal Complaint Committee.
- State, i.e., respondent 4, was asked by the Hon’ble Bench to submit details of the officer/authority in-charge for ensuring compliance of Aggregators Rules.
Matter currently reserved for final hearing.