All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Directions: Read the following passage and a... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin 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. 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 above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Su...
It is clearly stated in the question that for the principal to be held liable, it is necessary that the principal should have authorised the activity. In the given case, as Anand has been authorised by Shashank to do the act and in his act, he damaged the neighbour's car, the principal, i.e. Shashank is liable.
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.
< 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. Direction and Control Test: If a person receives directions from the employer on how to do the job, then he is an employee. If not, he is an independent contractor.Imagine that Ramesh is a taxi driver, and Rajesh asked Ramesh to take him to the airport and in-between stop at two places. Is Ramesh an employee or independent contractor?

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

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. The unorganised labour force can be categorised on the basis 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 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. 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.

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?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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?
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.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup