abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

文章

2024年11月20日

作者:
Abraham Thomas, Hindustan Times

India: Apex court asserts gig workers' rights cannot be denied, criticises Centre's delay on social security protections

" Cannot deny gig workers’ rights under guise of policy decision: SC tells govt", 20 November 2024

The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the Union government that labour and social security rights for gig workers and app-based service providers cannot be denied under the guise of a “policy decision” if a statutory regime provides for such protections.

...

A lawyer appearing for the Centre pointed out that since the matter involves a “policy decision”, they would require some more time. Taking exception to this explanation, the bench responded: “There is a submission by the petitioner that there are statutory provisions and regulations that you must comply with. Is it your submission that you will take a ‘policy decision’ whether to comply with the statutory provisions or not? How can that be?”

...

The court was hearing a petition, moved by the Indian Federation of Application-Based Transport Workers (IFAT), that has argued for gig workers to be recognised as “unorganised workers” and to be extended statutory benefits such as health insurance and pensions. Notice in the case was issued in December 2021, but the Centre has yet to take a clear position.

...

The IFAT petition names platform companies such as Zomato, Swiggy, Uber, and Ola, accusing them of denying gig workers their rightful entitlements by misclassifying them as independent contractors. The petition contends that this classification deprives gig workers of essential social security benefits, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.