Read Time: 11 minutes

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a plea filed by "gig workers" seeking social security benefits from food delivery apps such as Zomato and Swiggy and taxi aggregator apps Ola and Uber.

A bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai issued notice stating that the new legislation by the Parliament, Social Security Code 2020 has a chapter protecting the gig workers.

“Gig Workers” through The Indian Federation Of App Based Transport Workers (IFAT) have approached the Supreme Court raising questions of public and constitutional importance as to whether “Right to Social Security” is a guaranteed fundamental right for all working people employed in formal or informal sectors.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appearing for the workers submitted that the petitioners are seeking protection even under the existing laws.

"We state that the drivers and delivery workers are actual workmen in the classical sense," Jaising added.

The plea has stated that the petitioners are “unorganised workers” within the meaning of the ‘Unorganised Workers’ Social Welfare Security Act, 2008’ (“UW Act”) and are entitled to registration and social security under the said Act, and have sought for declaring “gig workers” and “app based workers” as “unorganized workers” and/or “wage workers” within the meaning of Section 2(m) and 2(n) of the Unorganised Workers Social Welfare Security Act, 2008.

Backgroud

The plea further stated that the denial of social security to “gig workers” and “platform workers” has resulted in their exploitation through forced labour within the meaning of Article 23 of the Constitution.

“Gig workers” or “app workers” or “platform workers” work in what has come to be known as workers who work in the “informal economy”. The informal economy accounts for 1/3rd of the Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) and 70% of employment in an average developing country. A substantial number of workers including the wageworkers and unorganized workers work and generate value in the said economy,” submitted the petitioner in the plea.

In light of this, the petitioners have also sought for formulation of specific schemes such as health insurance, maternity benefits, pension, old age assistance, disability allowance and completion of vaccination at Aggregator’s cost, on priority basis.

Pertinently the petitioners have also relied on Chapter IX of “The Code on Social Security, 2020” which deals with “Social Security for Unorganized Workers, Gig Workers and Platform Workers” and seeks to provide for framing schemes for unorganized workers, to aver that recognition of gig workers and platform workers as unorganised workers in a legislation is an indication of the Centre’s policy for providing them social security.

It is contended by them that the “Code on Social Security, 2020” is yet to be given effect, and that at present these workers are not being provided the benefit of social security under any of the labour legislations - organized or unorganized.

According to the respondents there exists no contract of employment between the Respondent companies (OlaCabs, Uber, Swiggy, Zomato) and the petitioners and their relationship with the petitioners is in the nature of partnership, however the gig workers have contended that acceptance of this contention would be inconsistent with the purpose of social welfare legislation.

Furthermore, it has been averred that the respondent companies who own the Apps exercise complete supervision and control over the manner and method of work with those who are allowed to register on the said Apps.

Supporting their contention, the gig workers have also stated that,

“The mere fact that their employers call themselves “Aggregators” and enter into the so-called “partnership agreements” does not take away the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee; master and servant and worker within the meaning of all applicable laws. The said contracts are a mere device to disguise the nature of relationship, which is de-jure, and de-facto relationship of employer and worker being a contract of employment.”

The petitioners have further relied upon the observations made by the UK Supreme Court while rejecting Uber BV’s appeal against the order of an Employment Tribunal,  and averred that the observations apply mutatis mutandis to the “gig workers” too as Uber is a multinational entity which functions through companies incorporated in different parts of the world, but on the same conditions with its employees worldwide.

“The terms of conditions by Uber, Ola, Zomato and Swiggy with their drivers or delivery staff are almost the same,” the petition further stated.

Thus the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs –

• Issuance of directions to the aggregator companies to provide economic relief to app based workers in the nature of cash transfers of Rs. 1175/- per day for app based drivers and Rs 675/- per day until December 31, 2021 or till the time the pandemic subsides
• Extension of distribution of food grains under the PM Garib Kalyan Ann Yojana to all App Based Workers irrespective of whether the App Based Workers hold ration cards or not
• Issuance of directions to financial institution, banks or NBFC to not seize and/or auction vehicles of App Based Workers on their failure to pay EMI’s of their loans till the pandemic continues and subjecting the financial institution, banks, or NBFCs, to penalties on their failure to comply with the directions issued in RBI circulars and the Top Court’s judgement titled, “Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association vs Union of India” 2021 SCC Online SC 246.

Cause Title: The Indian Federation Of App Based Transport Workers & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.