Ola Will Not Take The Responsibility Of Your Safety!

A recent case involving one of India’s most prominent ride-hailing platforms, Ola, has raised critical issues about customer safety and corporate responsibility in the gig economy. 

The case began as a woman’s complaint in 2019 against an Ola driver for sexual harassment but takes through a number of judicial twists and turns before eventually exposing complexities in holding tech platforms accountable for the actions of their associated workers.

In fact, the order from the Karnataka High Court was a significant victory for both customers and gig workers. On 30 September 2023, Justice M G S Kamal set a precedent by ruling that Ola as an employer had an employment relationship with drivers. Worker advocacy groups such as the Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers (IFAT) hailed the judgment as landmark in the hope that it would overhaul the environment of the gig economy.

What Was The Verdict ?

Such a verdict by the court would have been a direct cut across at Ola’s attempts at trying to distance itself from accountability for driver misbehavior. It seems to have sent a clear message: there is no way this platform can simply wash off its hands for accountability in relation to user safety. Directing the parent company of Ola, ANI Technologies, to pay the victim Rs 5 lakh and ordering the committee of its Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to conduct proper inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 or POSH Act.

Justice Kamal was particularly harsh. The court underlined the fact that when it came to dealing with its drivers, Ola indicated characteristics of control to impress an employer-employee relationship. Moreover, the judgment underlined the fact that the agreements between Ola and customers and drivers did not mention that Ola does not undertake the responsibility of issues arising during rides.

No less stringent was the judgment on Ola’s ICC. “Negligent on the part of the ICC in not investigating a complaint of sexual harassment of a woman commuter,” was what it found. It rejected, without an inch of leniency, the alibi of lack of jurisdiction that the ICC alleged to have been formed, considering the status drivers were provided in the company as “independent contractors,” instead of employees. It stated that Ola had both the authority and the obligation to respond to such serious allegations.

A further attention of the court to the issue of “driver-swapping” – that is, a different driver than the one assigned appears for a ride – reflected the appalling lack of concern for passenger safety on the company’s part. It also shows that the company admitted knowledge of the practice but did nothing to curb it or report it to the appropriate authorities, reflecting the company to be more interested in profits than in the welfare of its passengers.

The verdict was welcomed by different stakeholders as a step in the right direction. Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers(IFAT) general secretary Shaik Salauddin welcomed the judgment to be an affirmation of what IFAT had long been advocating for, that the platforms are not just intermediaries but actual employers having both responsibilities towards drivers and riders. The federation said that there should be zero tolerance for sexual harassment and that the POSH Act should be enforced strictly, whether it is a passenger or the driver.

This verdict was thought to mark a shift in the gig economy towards much greater accountability and possibly the standard from which other such platforms would need to learn. It seemed to close one of the loopholes that companies had long exploited in order to avoid liability for associated workers’ actions. This was considered a victory in terms of safety for women as well as workers since the court insisted on Ola’s proper probe and compensation to the victim.

However, these celebrations were short-lived. In a dramatic twist of events, the vacation bench of the Karnataka High Court stayed the verdict of the single judge. This interim order passed by Justices S R Krishna Kumar and M G Uma has come after an appeal by Ola – the accused, who was represented by senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, argued that the earlier judgment had been wrong in establishing the employer-employee relationship.

This reversal of the earlier order brings out the failure of the judicial trial in providing a clear resolution for the complex issues apparent in the gig economy and the responsibility of platforms. 

The back-and-forth of rulings finally failed the citizens who are relying on these services for daily transportation. It leaves customers in a precarious position, uncertainty over where to turn in case of malpractice or violation of safety regulations. The court hasn’t taken any clear stand on such portals as Ola being responsible, thus making this a dangerous grey area where accountability slips through the cracks.

Ambiguity in law also means that companies like Ola continue to operate with a focus on profit rather than safety for their passengers. Legal status of drivers as independent contractors rather than employees helps the platforms avoid rigor in safety and accountability measures, putting both the passenger and driver at risk and leaving them open to exploitation and poor treatment.

The inability of the judiciary to provide a conclusive judgment on the issue is all the more disappointing keeping in mind the increasing dependence on ride-hailing services in urban India. While these services sink deeper into everyday life, the need for definite regulations and accountability is needed now more than ever. The fact that the judiciary of the country is not able to settle the matter conclusively leaves a very dangerous vacuum wherein companies are free to continue making money at the cost of rider safety.

More importantly, the favorable judgment towards Ola has now provided these companies the confidence to hold back in handling complaints of sexual harassment against ride-hailing services. While the stay order by the court gave out the wrong signal that such issues are not pressing enough to be acted upon immediately, thus dissuading other victims from filing cases, either.

The case also raises a more macro-level issue of how the existing structures of traditional legal frameworks function with a rapidly changing gig economy. The connection that exists between platforms like Ola and associated workers cannot be treated under the ordinary ambit of employment. This ambiguity is exploited by the companies in their dealing to avoid and take advantage of loopholes in labor laws while making workers shoulder all the responsibilities of employers in relation to their ‘manpower.’

How Did Ola Manage To Get Away?

Ola’s strategy in this case is one of how technology companies perennially attempt to get their cake and eat it too while benefiting from the working of workers linked to it but keeping a safe distance in case something goes wrong with the labor. Such a strategy can be very dangerous for the safety of passengers. The company’s refusal even to probe an investigation by its ICC regarding sexual harassment asserts a certain abdication of corporate responsibility and suggests a corporate culture more ticked by the technicalities of the law than by the well-being and safety of its passengers.

This makes it all the more important for the judiciary to step in. The courts then have an even deeper responsibility towards citizens who are being put to test and towards the corporations that claim to provide services and, yet, will deny at every opportunity the nature of those services, be it servitude or otherwise. The flip-flop, while recognizing employer-employee status and then stating the same, does not give it the clarity and protection that both the passengers and the drivers need.

This case can be seen as a reminder of challenges that both the judiciary and society at large are struggling with in today’s digital world.

It requires a far more sensitive understanding of employment relationships in the gig economy and highlights the urgent need for regulations that place much greater importance on user safety and worker rights. As more and more ride-hailing services are getting popular, it is of the utmost importance that these legal frameworks evolve in a manner that these companies do not manage to wriggle out of their responsibilities toward the customers and workers.

Only when the judicial system of the country will be definitive in its course of action, can we hope that companies will serve in the interests of their customers and not just that of their own.