Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
proflie-avatar
Login
exit_to_app
Yogi glorification in FIR and press freedom
access_time 10 Oct 2024 1:14 PM GMT
The lessons from the assembly elections
access_time 9 Oct 2024 10:57 AM GMT
Technology in evil hands!
access_time 8 Oct 2024 6:31 AM GMT
dalit
access_time 8 Oct 2024 1:21 PM GMT
Democracy implies transparency
access_time 7 Oct 2024 5:08 AM GMT
exit_to_app
Homechevron_rightIndiachevron_rightOla driver an employee...

Ola driver an employee under POSH Act: Karnataka HC, directs firm to pay damages under the Act

text_fields
bookmark_border
Ola driver an employee under POSH Act: Karnataka HC, directs firm to pay damages under the Act
cancel

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday ordered ANI technologies, which owns and operates cab aggregator Ola, to pay a compensation of 5 lakh to a woman who suffered sexual harassment by an Ola driver, Scroll reported.

Justice MGS Kamal made it clear that the driver has to be considered an employee of the Ola based on the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, or the POSH Act.

The woman in her complaint said that while traveling on an Ola cab to her office in Bengaluru in August 2018, the driver stared at her through the mirror alongside watching an obscene video on his phone, making it visible for her.

Seeking action against the employee, she filed a complaint with ANI technologies but the company’s internal complaints committee reportedly refused to hold an enquiry.

Subsequently woman approached the court seeking direction to ANI technologies to look into the matter alongside she sought direction to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development in order to ensure that the company complied with the Act.

The counsel for the woman told the court that Ola acted like a transport company, not just a platform, adding that ‘There is no privity of contract between the company and the driver and not me and the driver’.

The petitioner argued that the company was responsible for the actions of the driver, alongside contending that the POSH Act was also applicable to the company.

The petition pointed out that the company’s internal complaint committee should not have rejected her complaint.

However, Ola sought dismissal of the petition claiming that action was taken against the driver.

The court in its order on Monday said ‘it is clear that the definition of term ‘employee’ provided under Section 2(f) of PoSH Act, 2013 embraces all possible connection which employer would have with the employee’.

Show Full Article
TAGS:BengaluruIndia News
Next Story