Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through records of the case.

6. The pleadings made in the written statement as referred to by the counsel for the appellant, read as under:

"4. It is incorrect to state that the deceased Jitender kumar was the employee of the Respondents. The Deceased Jitender kumar was engaged with Respondents as Pickup and Delivery Partner (PDP) on principal to principal basis. The contractual engagement is on a Principal to Principal basis and said deceased Jitender is recognised as Third-party Pick-up and Delivery Partners (PDP's) as such these Individuals engage themselves voluntarily, to undertake the task of picking-up of the packed food from a Restaurant and ensure its delivery to Customers. To clarify, Respondents/Swiggy's role is limited to relaying the Order electronically to such PDP's who will make themselves available by logging into the Swiggy Delivery Partner Application, who in-tum independently complete the task of pick-up and delivery. Prior to engaging voluntarily with Respondent, it is prerequisite on the part of PDP's to understand and agree to a click wrap agreement which is available on Respondents/Swiggy's delivery partner application, enabling the online companies including the Respondents to have contracts in place with numerous customers without negotiating with them individually. A copy of a sample agreement entered into between Bundl Technologies Pvt Ltd and deceased Jitender Kumar is annexed hereto as Annexure - A.

5. It is respectfully submitted that the deceased was not an employee/workmen, and hence the question of applicability of the Employee's Compensation Act doesn't arise. What is most material to the facts on hand is that these PDPs including the deceased Jitender Kumar was at full liberty to decide as to when and for how long they would like to be available for receiving delivery requests. There is no hard and fast set of guidelines, timelines that dictate in any way, shape or form the timing aspect of their engagement with Respondent/Swiggy. If anything, this is an adequate representation of the entirely voluntary and flexible partnership between Respondent /Swiggy and deceased Jitender Kumar.

7. It is also pertinent to mention that the deceased Jitender Kumar was not paid fixed wages but variable compensation based on time allocated to Respondent/ Swiggy and number of deliveries all prompted by self-choice and not as per Respondents/ Swiggy's directions. This payment can be termed as 'Service Fees' but not Wages. Besides this, the deceased Jitender Kumar enjoyed complete freedom of choosing work and there is no precondition to take up a minimum number of assignments."