Social Security for Gig Workers | Day 1: “Last chance” for the Union to file their reply
Gig Workers’ Access to Social SecurityToday the Supreme Court briefly heard the Indian Federation of App Based Transport Workers’ (IFAT) plea to recognise gig workers as “unorganised workers” under the Unorganised Workers’ Social Welfare Security Act, 2008 (UW Act).
However, as none of the five Union ministries involved in the case had filed their reply to the petition, the Court had to adjourn the case. The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and P.K. Mishra, was stern about the delay and set a clear timeline for parties to follow.
Background
On 9 September 2021, IFAT filed a petition before the Supreme Court arguing that the current agreements between the companies and the workers violate Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. The gig workers contract with companies such as Ola, Uber, Swiggy and Zomato and consider them as ‘partners’ and not ‘employees’ thereby exempting companies from providing social security benefits.
Petitioners argue that the failure to recognise gig workers as ‘workman’ or ‘employee’ under social security regulations violates their constitutional right to equality, since they cannot avail the benefits that similarly situated workmen or employees do.
Secondly, they argue that denying them social security benefits, especially during the pandemic, amounted to exploitation through forced labour. Hence, the constitutionally protected right to work, right to livelihood and right to decent and fair conditions of work of the workers guaranteed under Articles 21 and 23 are violated.
They urged the Court to recognise gig workers as ‘unorganised workers’ under the UW Act and to extend the social security benefits embedded in the act to gig workers.
In the hearing today, the Union Government sought an adjournment and for more time to file their replies to the petition. The petition is against the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, none of whom have filed their replies.
The Court gave them until 17 December 2024 to file their replies, warning them that it is their “last chance.” Parties have also been instructed to file their rejoinders by 9 January 2025.
What good will impleading state governments do?
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued on behalf of the petitioners. She argued that under the UW Act, the obligation to protect gig workers’ rights exists not only in the Union but also in state governments. States need to fund the welfare scheme sought for the gig workers. “Unfortunately I did not make all the states a party,” she said and asked for permission to implead them.
“Simply making the states a party will not help you,” Justice Datta said, “you have to amend your writ petition, you have to show to the Court how the State has failed its performance of statutory duty” he said. He was referring to the point that no specific reliefs were sought by the petitioners against state governments. Merely adding them as party to the case would not allow them to make state governments comply with a decision, since the scope of the case will not mention any particular action to be taken by them.
The hearing concluded as the Bench refused to entertain the request at this stage. They did however state that an application for impleadment may be filed if the clients of the advocates so choose.
The court will tentatively hear the case next on 20 January 2025.
