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. The principal is liable for the acts authorised by him and done by his agent. For the principal to be held liable, it is necessary that the principal should have authorised the activity. The authority can be expressed or implied.Anand was authorised to clean the car of Shashank, and in doing so, he damaged the car of a neighbour. Who is liable here, Anand or Shashank, for the damage caused to the neighbour's car?a)Anand alone is liable because he was authorised to clean the car only, not damage other cars.b)Both Anand and Shashank are liable because of the principal and agent relationship.c)Cleaning the car was an authorised act, and in performing the same, neighbour's car is damaged; hence, Shashank is liable.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. The principal is liable for the acts authorised by him and done by his agent. For the principal to be held liable, it is necessary that the principal should have authorised the activity. The authority can be expressed or implied.Anand was authorised to clean the car of Shashank, and in doing so, he damaged the car of a neighbour. Who is liable here, Anand or Shashank, for the damage caused to the neighbour's car?a)Anand alone is liable because he was authorised to clean the car only, not damage other cars.b)Both Anand and Shashank are liable because of the principal and agent relationship.c)Cleaning the car was an authorised act, and in performing the same, neighbour's car is damaged; hence, Shashank is liable.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. The principal is liable for the acts authorised by him and done by his agent. For the principal to be held liable, it is necessary that the principal should have authorised the activity. The authority can be expressed or implied.Anand was authorised to clean the car of Shashank, and in doing so, he damaged the car of a neighbour. Who is liable here, Anand or Shashank, for the damage caused to the neighbour's car?a)Anand alone is liable because he was authorised to clean the car only, not damage other cars.b)Both Anand and Shashank are liable because of the principal and agent relationship.c)Cleaning the car was an authorised act, and in performing the same, neighbour's car is damaged; hence, Shashank is liable.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. The principal is liable for the acts authorised by him and done by his agent. For the principal to be held liable, it is necessary that the principal should have authorised the activity. The authority can be expressed or implied.Anand was authorised to clean the car of Shashank, and in doing so, he damaged the car of a neighbour. Who is liable here, Anand or Shashank, for the damage caused to the neighbour's car?a)Anand alone is liable because he was authorised to clean the car only, not damage other cars.b)Both Anand and Shashank are liable because of the principal and agent relationship.c)Cleaning the car was an authorised act, and in performing the same, neighbour's car is damaged; hence, Shashank is liable.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. The principal is liable for the acts authorised by him and done by his agent. For the principal to be held liable, it is necessary that the principal should have authorised the activity. The authority can be expressed or implied.Anand was authorised to clean the car of Shashank, and in doing so, he damaged the car of a neighbour. Who is liable here, Anand or Shashank, for the damage caused to the neighbour's car?a)Anand alone is liable because he was authorised to clean the car only, not damage other cars.b)Both Anand and Shashank are liable because of the principal and agent relationship.c)Cleaning the car was an authorised act, and in performing the same, neighbour's car is damaged; hence, Shashank is liable.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. The principal is liable for the acts authorised by him and done by his agent. For the principal to be held liable, it is necessary that the principal should have authorised the activity. The authority can be expressed or implied.Anand was authorised to clean the car of Shashank, and in doing so, he damaged the car of a neighbour. Who is liable here, Anand or Shashank, for the damage caused to the neighbour's car?a)Anand alone is liable because he was authorised to clean the car only, not damage other cars.b)Both Anand and Shashank are liable because of the principal and agent relationship.c)Cleaning the car was an authorised act, and in performing the same, neighbour's car is damaged; hence, Shashank is liable.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. The principal is liable for the acts authorised by him and done by his agent. For the principal to be held liable, it is necessary that the principal should have authorised the activity. The authority can be expressed or implied.Anand was authorised to clean the car of Shashank, and in doing so, he damaged the car of a neighbour. Who is liable here, Anand or Shashank, for the damage caused to the neighbour's car?a)Anand alone is liable because he was authorised to clean the car only, not damage other cars.b)Both Anand and Shashank are liable because of the principal and agent relationship.c)Cleaning the car was an authorised act, and in performing the same, neighbour's car is damaged; hence, Shashank is liable.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. The principal is liable for the acts authorised by him and done by his agent. For the principal to be held liable, it is necessary that the principal should have authorised the activity. The authority can be expressed or implied.Anand was authorised to clean the car of Shashank, and in doing so, he damaged the car of a neighbour. Who is liable here, Anand or Shashank, for the damage caused to the neighbour's car?a)Anand alone is liable because he was authorised to clean the car only, not damage other cars.b)Both Anand and Shashank are liable because of the principal and agent relationship.c)Cleaning the car was an authorised act, and in performing the same, neighbour's car is damaged; hence, Shashank is liable.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. The principal is liable for the acts authorised by him and done by his agent. For the principal to be held liable, it is necessary that the principal should have authorised the activity. The authority can be expressed or implied.Anand was authorised to clean the car of Shashank, and in doing so, he damaged the car of a neighbour. Who is liable here, Anand or Shashank, for the damage caused to the neighbour's car?a)Anand alone is liable because he was authorised to clean the car only, not damage other cars.b)Both Anand and Shashank are liable because of the principal and agent relationship.c)Cleaning the car was an authorised act, and in performing the same, neighbour's car is damaged; hence, Shashank is liable.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.