Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: Read the following passage and a...

Join the Discussion on the App

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.

The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.

An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.

Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.

a)
Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.
b)
Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.
c)
The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.
d)
Both (b) and (c)

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test- 41

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Su...

Uber and Ola's tight control over its drivers and the provision of standardised service to riders and deciding all the factors of what, how, when and where is satisfied with the 'supervision and control' test. An example to decide how much a driver is required to work cannot be used to decide the control test because at the end of the day, whether to work or not to work always lies on the person; the actual control test starts when a person decides to work and then how the organisation controls him.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to lif e) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Dentists, veterinarians, and lawyers practising independently can be classified as

View answer

Passage:The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)( c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order.So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry.The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providingfor increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government.With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, theConstituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication.Q.The legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir passes a law against the 100th Amendment Act of Parliament of India passed in 2015 in its session held on 20-1-20. The Speaker of the House attends the session and calls it path-breaking in the ethos of federal democracy where the legislative Assembly can pass a law showing true spirit of dissent against the Union.

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. Based on the arguments advanced in the first paragraph of the passage, if any legislation is challenged before the court, what is the best course of action that courts can take?

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. What is the duty of the state regarding the implementation of Directive Principles?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.a)Uber and Ola do not decide how much a driver is required to work, hence no employee relationship.b)Uber and Ola set the fare and decide the customer; hence, relationship of what and how, when and where to do is satisfied.c)The driver-passenger communication is available only when routed through Uber and Ola app; hence, control over the driver means employee relationship exists.d)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam