ABSTRACT
India’s rapid growth in the digital platform economy has brought millions of workers into app – based and flexible forms of employment, yet their legal status and access to protection remain uncertain. Gig workers are often classified as outside the traditional employer – employee frameworks, leaving them without social security, stable income and effective mechanisms for redressal. Questions concerning their classification, entitlement to labour rights and adequacy to existing Indian laws have become the central issue to contemporary labour law. It looks at how legal frameworks have evolved, the unique nature of gig work, how other countries’ courts have dealt with similar issues, and why India needs clearer laws to ensure fairness, protection, and dignity for gig workers.
INTRODUCTION
India’s platform economy has enlarged at an unprecedented pace, driven by digitalisation, urban consumer demand and the proliferation of app – based services. The food delivery agents, cab drivers, warehouse pickers, home – service providers, and freelance professionals now form a substantial share of the urban informal workforce. However, unlike traditional employees gig workers remain outside the protective umbrella of most labour laws, despite generating significant economic value for digital platforms. The gig employees straddle a grey zone that is neither they are fully independent contractors nor recognised employees. Therefore this ambiguity has allowed platforms to retain the flexibility of a non – employment model while exercising control reminiscent of traditional employers. As a result the gig workers face systematic vulnerabilities such as lack of social security, algorithmic control, data exploitation, and absence of collective bargaining rights.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING GIG WORKERS IN INDIA
India’s present labour law structure has evolved around the binary distinction of “employer – employee” relationship, leaving behind the gig workers outside the definitional scope. But gig workers are often misunderstood with independent contractors but there is a thin line of difference between the two. Gig workers rely on a digital intermediary for work and are subject to its rules, while independent contractors negotiate and control the terms of their engagement more freely and work directly for clients under a contract without a platform acting as an intermediary.
The Code on Social Security, 2020 (CSS) represents the first legislative attempt to formally recognise “Gig Workers” and “Platform Workers” as distinct categories in Section 2(35) and Section 2(61) respectively. However the recognition is nominal as the Code 2020 promises social security but the implementation is entirely future schemes that remain largely unnotified or underdeveloped. Therefore gig workers continue to be excluded from core labour rights such as minimum wage protection, collective bargaining, health and safety standards, and protection against unfair contract terms. Other labour laws such as Industrial Relations Code, 2020 and Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 don’t incorporate gig workers within their frameworks. Consequently, legal protections remain fragmented, aspirational and procedurally weak.
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 provides limited protection to ride – hailing drivers in the form of aggregator guidelines, yet these guidelines largely regulate licensing, surge pricing and operational standards rather than welfare of the workers. Social security scheme such as e – Shram portal have attempted to include the gig workers in a centralized database, but registration does not automatically confer benefits. Thus, India’s legal approach remains cautious, incremental and insufficiently responsive to the growth of the gig economy.
HOW GIG WORKERS DIFFER FROM TRADITIONAL WORKERS
Gig workers differ from traditional employees in the nature of control, continuity and dependency. The traditional workers work within prescribed hours, defined roles, hierarchical supervision and secure wage arrangements. Gig workers in contrast are presented as independent contractors who can choose when, where and how much to work. However this autonomy is often illusory. Algorithms determine assignments, incentives, visibility on the platform and even the termination of access. For example, a delivery rider may technically choose their working hours, but algorithmic penalties for inactivity and rewards for peak-hour performance create economic pressure to work long and unpredictable shifts.
Unlike traditional workers, gig workers receive no definite wages instead they earn per task, making their income volatile and dependent on demand alteration. The absence of an employment relationship means gig workers cannot unionise, negotiate standardised contracts, or demand basis labour protections. This asymmetry creates a form of “dependent self – employment,” blurring the classic dichotomy between employer control and independent work. Thus, while platforms rely on the labour of gig workers as a core operational input, they disassociate themselves from the responsibilities that traditionally accompany such reliance.
NEED FOR PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAWS
The recognition of gig workers under the Social Security Code, 2020 (CSS), remains largely symbolic without meaningful implementation. The lack of compulsory aggregator contributions, well – defined structures and accessible social welfare mechanisms continues to leave gig workers in an unsafe state. Instances of occupational hazards like accidents involving food delivery agents, harassment of ride – hail drivers, and arbitrary “deactivation” of workers by platforms highlight the urgent need for enforceable safeguards.
Inadequate implementation also undermines India’s commitments under international labour standards, including ILO’s Decent Work Agenda. As the gig economy stretches, the failure to regulate risks deepening urban inequality and institutionalising precarious work as a norm. Effective implementation would require clear statutory definitions, mandatory contributions to social security funds, dispute – resolution mechanisms, data transparency mandates and recognition of collective representation. Without such measures the law remains aspirational rather than protective.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
Courts across the world, especially in relation to the United Kingdom and United Nations, addressing the employment status of gig workers have begun, offering valuable insights for India’s developing framework. In the United Kingdom the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Uber BV v. Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 held that uber drivers were “workers” and not independent contractors, therefore granting them rights such as minimum wage and paid leave. Similarly the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court [4 Cal.5th 903 (2018)] adopted the “ABC test” presuming worker to be an employee unless the hiring entity proves the worker is free from control performs work outside the usual course of business and is independently engaged in a trade. This judgment was the turning point in the United States gig – work debate and influenced legislative measures such as California’s AB – 5 and subsequent Proposition 22, which led to hybrid regulatory models for platform workers.
In an ongoing case of the Supreme Court of India, The Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers (IFAT) v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 1068/2021] where a petition has been filed by the IFAT union seeking to recognize app-based gig workers as “unorganised workers” under the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 to ensure they receive social security and welfare benefits. The petition argues that the relationship between gig workers and companies like Ola, Uber, Swiggy, and Zomato, with the companies’ control over work, violates constitutional rights under Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life), and 23 (prohibition of forced labour). Another case Ms. X v. Internal Complaints Committee, ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors [(2024) SCC Online Kar 3793] the Karnataka High Court held that Ola driver The Karnataka High Court held that OLA driver-subscribers could be treated as “employees” for the purposes of the POSH Act (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act), ordered the internal complaints committee to act and imposed compensation. This is a recent, highly relevant HC decision that shows one Indian High Court recognising statutory protection for gig workers.
Therefore international jurisprudence thus underscores a judicial trend toward recognising gig workers as economically dependent actors deserving of core labour protections. Whereas India’s legislative and judicial hesitation stands in sharp contrast to these developments, highlighting the need for more proactive intervention.
CONCLUSION
India stands at the pivotal moment in shaping the future of digital labour. While gig work offers flexibility, income opportunities and entrepreneurial potential, the absence of legal protections for them exposes workers to economic insecurity and systemic exploitation. The Social Security Code, though a progressive step, remains ineffective without clear implementation and enforceable obligations. Judicial developments in other jurisdictions reveal a growing international consensus that gig workers deserve labour rights commensurate with the degree of control exercised by digital platforms. For India, a comprehensive reform agenda must include statutory clarity, mandatory social security contributions, algorithmic transparency, grievance – redressal systems and recognition of collective bargaining. Protecting gig workers is not merely a labour-law concern but a broader socio – economic imperative necessary to ensure that technological innovation aligns with principles of fairness, dignity and justice
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- SUSMITA ROYCHOWDHURY
