Gig workers union hails HC order on Ola driver harassment case, says it recognises drivers as employees

On September 30, Karnataka High Court ruled that a relationship of 'employer and employee' exists between Ola and its driver-partners.

Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers (IFAT) on October 2 welcomed the Karnataka High Court order directing ANI Technologies, which operates Ola, to pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation to a woman who was sexually harassed by a driver associated with the platform. They said the court diktat meant that the driver was recognised as the company's employee.

"The recent Karnataka High Court judgment that recognises the driver as the company's employee, thereby holding the company accountable for the driver's behavior, is welcomed by the Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers (IFAT)," said Shaik Salauddin, general secretary, IFAT.

Also, read: Karnataka HC orders OLA to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation in sexual harassment case involving cab driver

"We believe there should be zero tolerance for sexual harassment, and the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH) Act should be strictly enforced, whether the harassment is directed at passengers or drivers," he added.

IFAT lauded the judgment, stating that it affirms the platform's responsibility to ensure a safe and harassment-free workplace for passengers and drivers alike.

"This landmark judgment has recognised drivers as employees of Ola for legal purposes—something we have been advocating for years. We welcome the HC's finding that aggregators are not merely 'intermediaries' but actual employers of app-based cab drivers. Therefore, they have employer responsibilities toward both drivers and riders," Salauddin said.

Also, read: Gig Workers and Large Companies: A symbiotic relationship under threat

What the court said

On September 30, the Karnataka High Court ruled that a relationship of "employer and employee" exists between Ola and its driver-partners. Justice MGS Kamal noted that Ola’s handling of its drivers—including training, evaluation, and appointment—demonstrates accountability.

Further, the court said that "nowhere in the subscription agreement or in the customer agreement available on the website of Ola is there any categorical mention that Ola would not take responsibility for any complaints or incidents during a ride, as its 'driver-partners' were not its employees".

Also, read: Why gig workers in India can’t unionise, despite poor working conditions?

The court found Ola’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) guilty of negligence for failing to investigate a woman’s sexual harassment complaint against a driver, citing the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act, 2013).

The company had claimed the driver was not an employee but an independent contractor. Ola further asserted that it lacked the authority to take disciplinary action against the driver beyond blacklisting or terminating the driver-partner and cooperating with the authorities. The court disagreed, ruling that Ola must compensate the woman with Rs 5 lakh and complete an inquiry within 90 days.

The court pointed out that Ola had acknowledged the occurrence of 'driver-swapping' incidents but had neither taken steps to curb this practice nor reported it to the authorities, indicating that the issue was not a priority for the company.

Also, read: Karnataka draft bill: Aggregators cannot terminate gig workers without 14-day notice