OLA has to initiate action against its drivers under PoSH Act on complaints of sexual harassment: Karnataka High Court

The High Court passed the order while partly allowing a petition filed in 2019 by a 22-year-old woman.
| Photo Credit:

The High Court of Karnataka has held that the relationship between ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (a company which operates taxi aggregator and other services under the brand name OLA) and its drivers is that of employee-employer, and hence the company has to act under the law enacted to protect women from sexual harassment at workplaces when complaints of sexual harassment are received against its drivers.

Also, the court directed OLA to pay a compensation of ₹5 lakh and litigation expenses of ₹50,000 to a victim woman, whose complaint of sexual harassment was not dealt under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (commonly known as PoSH Act) as the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the company declined to act under its provisions, claiming that drivers are not “employees” of OLA.

However, the court, on analysis of various terms and conditions in OLA’s ‘Subscription Agreement’ with the drivers and the terms of the agreement between OLA and the rider-subscriber, has held that the relationship between OLA and its drivers comes well within the purview the definition of “employees-employer” under the PoSH Act.

Justice M.G.S. Kamal passed the order while partly allowing a petition filed in 2019 by a 22-year-old woman. As the ICC had not acted on her complaint made in August 2018, the victim had lodged a complaint with the police as well as filed a petition complaining about the conduct of the ICC of OLA. The incident of sexual harassment occurred on August 23, 2018, morning when the woman was travelling to her workplace in J.P. Nagar from Yelahanka in a OLA cab.

The incident

The victim had alleged that a driver, who had impersonated the actual driver of the cab allotted to her, was watching a pornographic video on his phone and had intentionally held the phone in a manner to ensure that the pornographic video was visible to her. Not only that, but the driver was also simultaneously masturbating and was staring at her through the rearview mirror in a manner that made her extremely uncomfortable and scared.

Meanwhile, the court pointed out that OLA had violated the provisions of the Karnataka on Demand Transportation Technology Aggregator Rules, 2016, which mandates that any untoward incident occurring during the course of a ride, the licensee should inform the same to the licensing authority as well as to the jurisdictional police immediately, as OLA had not informed either of them about the complaint lodged by the petitioner.

“…it is clear that there is a complete and deliberate lack of exhibition of sensitivity, seriousness or the urgency on the part of both ICC and OLA in addressing the repeated pleas and requests of the petitioner under the garb of a pre-concluded notion of its driver-partners not being the employees, even without there being a formal enquiry,” the court observed.

Stating that “situation of a person as that of the petitioner, who was seized and captivated in a moving vehicle with a person, unauthorised/impersonator, having devilish intent, motive and design cannot even be comprehended,” the court said OLA and its ICC brazenly and without any scant regards breached and violated its safety assurances provided to the rider-subscribers.

Penalty

Meanwhile, the court directed the Additional Commissioner for Transport and the Secretary of the State Transport Authority to personally pay a penalty of ₹1 lakh as the authority did not file its response to the victim’s petition for five years.