ANI Technologies does not employ the drivers. The drivers employ Ola (ANI Technologies). - Dhyan Chinnappa (advocate representating Ola cabs)
Our country too allows gambling sites, applications as the courts interpret it as 'skill based' game.
Celebrities, sportsperson, actors have no guilty in promoting such things. Or for that matter: alcohol, pouch (gutka, supari) brands.
Our country also lets part-time, full-time workers, associates of Ola Uber Rapido Swiggy Ekart ATS Jugnoo Blinkit Instamart be kept out of the usual safety-nets like PF, insurance, other safety measures or remedy as per labour laws.. for workplace injuries, death.
Such workers are made to sign contracts were they are 'independent' contractors ONLY.
The companies disown any employee-employer relation and the workers (agents) are made to disclaim and forfeit any such rights (available as per the labour laws, other laws).
On September 30, 2024.. the Karnataka high court had directed the ICC (Internal Complaints Committee) of ANI Technologies Private Limited (Ola cabs) to conduct an an inquiry into the incident under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The single judge bench, headed by Justice MGS Kamal was hearing a case pertaining alleged sexual harassment of a lady, by the can driver, in 2018.
The alleged incident involved a lady passenger who had hailed a taxi, via Ola cabs, in 2018.
She had brought the alleged incident to the knowledge of ANI Technologies Private Limited.
However the petitioner (lady passenger) alleged that Ola cabs (ANI Technologies Private Limited) failed to take any action, beyond informing her that the driver had been blacklisted and his contract had been terminated. (The petitioner informed the court that Ola cabs (ANI Technologies Private Limited) had initially assured her of the driver being sent for counselling.)
In that (now impunged) order, authored by Justice MGS Kamal, apart from the inquiry by its Internal Complaints Committee.. ANI Technologies Private Limited was also directed to ensure the confidentiality of the individuals involved in the case, as per the Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
In that same order dated Monday, September 30, 2024..Justice MGS Kamal had also directed ANI Technologies Private Limited (Ola cabs) to compensate the petitioner (the lady passenger) with ₹50,000 INR towards litigation costs, besides the ₹500,000 (five hundred thousand) INR for her ordeal.
Today (Friday, October 04, 2024) senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa representating (Ola cabs) ANI Technologies Private Limited, challenged the previous order before the two judge division bench of the Karnataka high court, comprising justice SR Krishna Kumar and justice MG Uma.
Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa questioned the way in which Justice MGS Kamal has interpreted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
and (ANI TechnologiesPrivateLimited) Ola's liability under it.
Counsel for Ola cabs, advocate Dhyan Chinnappa is said to have told the (Karnataka) high court that "...we don't employ the drivers. The drivers employ OLA. The drivers are independent contractors.."
As such, the division bench of the Karnataka high court comprising of justices MG Uma and SR Krishna Kumar posted the case for hearing on October 28, 2024, as they observed that the matter requires detailed consideration.
Till then, the court has stayed the (previous) impugned order.
snapshot: in 2018, a woman claimed that she took a ride in a taxi, via Ola cabs. She claimed that the driver of that taxi/ride was masturbating, while looking at her in the rear-view mirror. She (the passenger) had also claimed that the driver was also watching pornographic content on his mobile device during all this, in a way that the content was visible to her too. She had claimed that the driver refused to let her disembark and did not stop the taxi till the they arrived at the destination.
Citing inadequate action on the driver and lack of help to her, the passenger (lady) took ANI Technologies Private Limited to court.
A single judge bench of the Karnataka high court took cognizance of the arguments put forth by the petitioner under the (PoSH Act) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
and as a remedy to the petitioner, the court directed ANI Technologies Private Limited (Ola cabs) to give rupees five lakhs to the lady, as compensation, besides a further fifty thousand rupees towards litigation expenses she might have incurred.
In less than a week, ANI Technologies Private Limited (Ola cabs) challenged this order, before a different bench of the same high court.
Thus time, the judges did a longer hmmm than all the hmms of DeepenGeorge put together.
In less than a week of the previous order, the two judge division of the Karnataka high court said that the points raised by the respondent (ANI Technologies Private Limited) does require detailed consideration and deliberation, so let us not rush things like compensation.
They stayed the previous order of their colleague, Justice MGS Kamal.
Now YOU have to think, that if you or someone close to you has some incident with Swiggy Zomato food or even dies from it
or if a Rapido, Jugnoo, ATSPL (Amazon Transportation Services Private Limited), Ekart, Uber, Ola agent (the so called 'independent contractor') does something untoward..
.. then under which laws, acts to take these companies to court.
These big companies will just 🤷🏻♂shrug and say that we disempaneled the errant agency and that is all.
Similarly, if YOU are the rider/driver partner or the delivery partner and even if you get killed.. then senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa will state that the dead person used the services of Ekart/ ATS, Jugnoo/Ola.. and not the other way around.
As per advocates like mister Dhyan Chinnappa.. the next of the kin will have no legal claims of compensation on the companies, even if the poor delivery associate got murdered by the customer of the site or died even in an accident while working for these big companies.
Celebrities, sportsperson, actors have no guilty in promoting such things. Or for that matter: alcohol, pouch (gutka, supari) brands.
Our country also lets part-time, full-time workers, associates of Ola Uber Rapido Swiggy Ekart ATS Jugnoo Blinkit Instamart be kept out of the usual safety-nets like PF, insurance, other safety measures or remedy as per labour laws.. for workplace injuries, death.
Such workers are made to sign contracts were they are 'independent' contractors ONLY.
The companies disown any employee-employer relation and the workers (agents) are made to disclaim and forfeit any such rights (available as per the labour laws, other laws).
On September 30, 2024.. the Karnataka high court had directed the ICC (Internal Complaints Committee) of ANI Technologies Private Limited (Ola cabs) to conduct an an inquiry into the incident under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The single judge bench, headed by Justice MGS Kamal was hearing a case pertaining alleged sexual harassment of a lady, by the can driver, in 2018.
The alleged incident involved a lady passenger who had hailed a taxi, via Ola cabs, in 2018.
She had brought the alleged incident to the knowledge of ANI Technologies Private Limited.
However the petitioner (lady passenger) alleged that Ola cabs (ANI Technologies Private Limited) failed to take any action, beyond informing her that the driver had been blacklisted and his contract had been terminated. (The petitioner informed the court that Ola cabs (ANI Technologies Private Limited) had initially assured her of the driver being sent for counselling.)
In that (now impunged) order, authored by Justice MGS Kamal, apart from the inquiry by its Internal Complaints Committee.. ANI Technologies Private Limited was also directed to ensure the confidentiality of the individuals involved in the case, as per the Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
In that same order dated Monday, September 30, 2024..Justice MGS Kamal had also directed ANI Technologies Private Limited (Ola cabs) to compensate the petitioner (the lady passenger) with ₹50,000 INR towards litigation costs, besides the ₹500,000 (five hundred thousand) INR for her ordeal.
Today (Friday, October 04, 2024) senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa representating (Ola cabs) ANI Technologies Private Limited, challenged the previous order before the two judge division bench of the Karnataka high court, comprising justice SR Krishna Kumar and justice MG Uma.
Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa questioned the way in which Justice MGS Kamal has interpreted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
and (ANI TechnologiesPrivateLimited) Ola's liability under it.
Counsel for Ola cabs, advocate Dhyan Chinnappa is said to have told the (Karnataka) high court that "...we don't employ the drivers. The drivers employ OLA. The drivers are independent contractors.."
As such, the division bench of the Karnataka high court comprising of justices MG Uma and SR Krishna Kumar posted the case for hearing on October 28, 2024, as they observed that the matter requires detailed consideration.
Till then, the court has stayed the (previous) impugned order.
snapshot: in 2018, a woman claimed that she took a ride in a taxi, via Ola cabs. She claimed that the driver of that taxi/ride was masturbating, while looking at her in the rear-view mirror. She (the passenger) had also claimed that the driver was also watching pornographic content on his mobile device during all this, in a way that the content was visible to her too. She had claimed that the driver refused to let her disembark and did not stop the taxi till the they arrived at the destination.
Citing inadequate action on the driver and lack of help to her, the passenger (lady) took ANI Technologies Private Limited to court.
A single judge bench of the Karnataka high court took cognizance of the arguments put forth by the petitioner under the (PoSH Act) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
and as a remedy to the petitioner, the court directed ANI Technologies Private Limited (Ola cabs) to give rupees five lakhs to the lady, as compensation, besides a further fifty thousand rupees towards litigation expenses she might have incurred.
In less than a week, ANI Technologies Private Limited (Ola cabs) challenged this order, before a different bench of the same high court.
Thus time, the judges did a longer hmmm than all the hmms of DeepenGeorge put together.
In less than a week of the previous order, the two judge division of the Karnataka high court said that the points raised by the respondent (ANI Technologies Private Limited) does require detailed consideration and deliberation, so let us not rush things like compensation.
They stayed the previous order of their colleague, Justice MGS Kamal.
Now YOU have to think, that if you or someone close to you has some incident with Swiggy Zomato food or even dies from it
or if a Rapido, Jugnoo, ATSPL (Amazon Transportation Services Private Limited), Ekart, Uber, Ola agent (the so called 'independent contractor') does something untoward..
.. then under which laws, acts to take these companies to court.
These big companies will just 🤷🏻♂shrug and say that we disempaneled the errant agency and that is all.
Similarly, if YOU are the rider/driver partner or the delivery partner and even if you get killed.. then senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa will state that the dead person used the services of Ekart/ ATS, Jugnoo/Ola.. and not the other way around.
As per advocates like mister Dhyan Chinnappa.. the next of the kin will have no legal claims of compensation on the companies, even if the poor delivery associate got murdered by the customer of the site or died even in an accident while working for these big companies.
3 Comments
|
4 Dimers
- Sort By
https://www.desidime.com/comments/permalink/10385516
Capitalists being capitalists. Taking a page from Uber who have been sued plenty of times in US but to no avail. These companies make money based on the misery of the menial workers.
Only governments can lay down the framework to change such exploitation.
Click here to reply
Reply
Ola is spending crores of rupees on advocates but can't compensate 5 lakh to victim. Sh*t company.