The Karnataka High Court on Monday ordered ANI Technologies, the owner and operator of cab aggregator Ola, to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation to a woman who was sexually harassed by a driver associated with the platform, Live Law reported.

A single-judge bench of Justice MGS Kamal also observed that the driver would be considered an employee of Ola under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, or the POSH Act.

In her complaint, the woman said that she had taken an Ola cab to her office in Bengaluru in August 2018, The Indian Express reported.

She alleged that the driver stared at her through the mirror and watched an obscene video on his phone during the ride. The phone was positioned so that it was visible to her, the woman added.

Subsequently, she had filed a complaint with ANI Technologies seeking action against the driver, Live Law reported. However, her complaint was not entertained, the woman said, adding that the company’s internal complaints committee had declined to hold an enquiry.

The woman then filed a petition in the court seeking directions to ANI Technologies to look into the complaint. She also sought directions to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development to ensure that the company complied with the Act.

The court had reserved its order on the petition on August 20.

During the hearing, the counsel for the woman told the court that OLA was not just a platform and acted like a transport company, Live Law reported. “There is no privity of contract between the company and the driver and not me and the driver,” the counsel said.

The company was responsible for the actions of the driver, the petitioner said. “If there was a disclaimer by OLA that we were not responsible for you, then I [petitioner] would not have taken the cab,” her counsel added.

The POSH Act was also applicable to the company, the petitioner contended, adding that the internal complaints committee should have not set aside her complaint.

However, the counsel for Ola said that labour laws cannot be applied in cases where the drivers were independent contractors, according to Live Law. Ola therefore cannot be raised to the status of an employer who employed the driver, the counsel added.

Ola also told the court that action had been taken against the driver and sought a dismissal of the petition.

In its order on Monday, the bench said that from an analysis of the terms of the subscription agreement between OLA and the driver, “it is clear that the definition of term ‘employee’ provided under Section 2(f) of PoSH Act, 2013 embraces all possible connection which employer would have with the employee”.

Section 2(f) of the Act defines an employee as anyone who works at a workplace, whether on a regular, temporary or ad hoc basis.

The court added: “In that view of the matter and more particularly for purposes of advancement of the intent and object of the PoSH Act, 2013 it is necessary and compelling that the meaning of the term ‘employee’ be extended to cover the persons like driver-subscriber.”

The order said that there was a “complete and deliberate lack of exhibition of sensitivity, seriousness or the urgency” on the part of the internal complaints committee and OLA in addressing the complaint “under the garb of a pre-concluded notion of its driver-partners not being the employees”.

The bench also directed the internal complaints committee of Ola to hold an inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It added that the process should be completed within 90 days and a report submitted to the district officer.