Karnataka High Court Reserves Order On Plea Seeking Action On Complaint Against OLA Cab Driver For Allegedly Sexually Harassing Female Commuter

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday reserved its order on a petition filed by a woman seeking inquiry on a complaint under the POSH Act against an OLA cab driver who allegedly sexually harassed her during a trip in 2019.

A single judge bench of Justice M G S Kamal heard the parties and reserved the order.

The petitioner was allegedly subjected to sexual harassment in 2019 and her complaint was made to ANI Technologies (which operates OLA) seeking action against the driver under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Woman At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, was not entertained.

The Internal Complaints Committee had declined to hold an enquiry in the matter upon the advice given by 'external legal counsel' that it did not have jurisdiction to enquire into the matter.

Following this, the petitioner approached the high court seeking direction on the company to inquire into the complaint.

The plea further sought a direction to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, to ensure that OLA strictly complies with the provisions of the Act and also a direction to the State government to issue such rules as may be necessary to protect women and children availing taxi services and ensure their safety and security.

During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the clauses of the terms of the agreement between OLA and the cabs and argued that OLA is not only a platform but acts like a transport company. "There is no privity of contract between the company and the driver and not me and the driver," the counsel said.

Pressing the point that the company was responsible for the actions of the driver the counsel said, “If there was a disclaimer by OLA that we were not responsible for you, then I (petitioner) would not have taken the cab”. He claimed that the POSH Act was applicable to the company and the internal committee of the company should have not dismissed her complaint.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for the company (OLA) sought dismissal of the petition. He said that Labour legislation cannot be applied in cases where these drivers are independent contractors and OLA cannot be raised to the status of an employer who has employed the driver.

The court questioned the counsel whether OLA would be responsible since the complainant (customer) contacted OLA for a cab and the cab driver, against whom the allegation has been levelled was sent by OLA.

In responding to this query, the senior counsel said, “When I book on Amazon i don't know where the delivery is coming from, the seller's name is there on the bill in small, can it be then said the intermediary has control. The leaseholder has the right over the cab. If I train a driver on how to perform duty during a ride, it does not take away that I am an intermediary.”

Submitting that action had been taken against the driver, the senior counsel sought dismissal of the petition contending that holding the driver as an employee of OLA would be an extreme stretch. He also contended that no punitive damages could be ordered against the company.

Meanwhile, the high court expressed displeasure at the affidavit filed by the state government and said that it would deal with the same in its order.

Case Title: ABC AND Internal Complaints Committee & Others

Case No: WP 8127/2019