Published On: August 21st 2025
Authored By: Shreyas Rastogi
ICFAI University Dehradun
Abstract
“They deliver your food in a storm, drive you home at midnight, code your apps by morning—but in the eyes of the law, they barely exist.”
India’s gig economy has revolutionized the concept of work—offering flexibility, digital innovation, and new opportunities for millions. However, this transformation has come at a legal cost. Despite forming the backbone of the nation’s platform economy, gig workers often operate in a regulatory void, lacking access to fundamental labour protections such as minimum wage, job security, health insurance, and collective bargaining.
Legislation such as the Code on Social Security, 2020[1], and state-led initiatives like the Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers Act, 2023[2], have made strides in acknowledging this workforce—but acknowledgment alone is not sufficient. These frameworks fall short of granting enforceable rights, leaving gig workers vulnerable to algorithmic control, income instability, and legal uncertainty.
This article analyses the legal status of gig workers in India, identifies structural weaknesses in the existing framework, and compares India’s approach with regulatory models from the United Kingdom, European Union, United States, and other jurisdictions. It advocates for a rights-based, enforceable regulatory approach that balances platform flexibility with labour dignity. Drawing from recent legislative reforms, judicial decisions, and international labour standards, the article urges India to construct a future of work that is not only technologically advanced but also fair, inclusive, and humane.
Introduction
India’s job market is undergoing a subtle yet significant transformation. The gig economy has witnessed rapid growth, driven by digitisation, shifting work cultures, and the increasing dominance of app-based platforms. From food delivery riders and cab drivers to freelance coders and virtual assistants, gig workers have become an integral part of daily life in urban India.
According to a NITI Aayog report, India had approximately 7.7 million gig workers in 2020–21, a number projected to triple to 23.5 million by 2029–30, accounting for nearly 6.7% of the non-agricultural workforce. This growth reflects a broader shift—from traditional, long-term employment toward flexible, digital-first work arrangements[3].
However, beneath this story of progress lies a deeper problem: a legal loophole. Most gig workers are classified as independent contractors rather than employees. That label denies them essential protections: no minimum wage, no access to social security, no right to form unions, and no legal recourse against arbitrary suspension or deactivation.
This legal uncertainty has created an environment where flexibility often gives way to insecurity. Many gig workers operate without insurance, without stable income, and under the constant control of algorithms that allocate tasks, determine pay, and deactivate accounts—frequently without explanation. Platforms exercise substantial control, yet bear minimal responsibility.
Despite legislative attempts, including the Code on Social Security, 2020 and the Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers Act, 2023, India still lacks a comprehensive and enforceable legal framework to guarantee gig workers their rights. Recognition has begun—but without protection, it remains an empty gesture. Legal acknowledgment, if not backed by enforceable rights, risks becoming another form of institutional neglect.
Legal Recognition of Gig Workers in India
India’s gig economy has grown exponentially and has become an essential component of its urban infrastructure. From food delivery personnel and taxi drivers to digital freelancers, gig workers have emerged as the driving force behind the convenience offered by app-based services. Despite rapid advancements in technology, India’s legal framework continues to lag behind, still categorizing workers as either employees or independent contractors. Caught in this binary, gig workers are legally recognized under the Code on Social Security, 2020, but they remain excluded from the most critical protections. According to Section 2(75) of the Code, these individuals are not considered “employees,” which means they are not entitled to benefits such as minimum wage, maternity leave, industrial dispute resolution, and job security[4]. This acknowledgment, though symbolically significant, remains largely ceremonial.
States like Rajasthan, which enacted a law in 2023 to establish India’s first welfare board for gig workers[5], and Karnataka, which introduced a draft bill in 2024 proposing structured wages and safety regulations, have taken commendable steps. However, these initiatives are still fragmented, lacking a comprehensive federal policy that guarantees nationwide uniformity and enforceability[6].
Meanwhile, Indian courts continue to apply long-standing tests of employment based on “control and supervision.” In Balwant Rai Saluja v Air India Ltd[7] The Supreme Court clarified that when a company dictates tasks, timing, and compensation, the relationship resembles employment, regardless of contractual labels. If this reasoning were applied to platforms like Uber, Zomato, or Urban Company—which assign tasks, monitor performance, and exercise deactivation powers—it could drastically reshape gig worker classification in India.
Globally, such transitions have already occurred. The UK Supreme Court’s ruling in Uber BV v Aslam[8] held that Uber drivers were not independent contractors but “workers” entitled to minimum wage, holiday pay, and protection against unfair dismissal. The European Court of Justice, in the Yodel case[9], similarly held that the absence of “genuine autonomy” disqualifies a worker from being classified as self-employed.
Yet in India, platforms continue to label their workforce as “partners” or “entrepreneurs”—a strategic narrative that, as noted in the ILO’s 2024 report, enables companies to retain control while evading legal responsibility. This linguistic framing conceals the inherent power imbalance, rendering gig workers legally visible but structurally voiceless[10].
Practical Gaps and Precarity in the Gig Ecosystem
The Code on Social Security, 2020[11] was celebrated as a significant advancement, offering legal recognition to gig workers through provisions for welfare schemes, mandatory contributions from aggregators, and social protections. Nevertheless, this acknowledgment has remained largely symbolic. Even after its enactment, the implementation of the law remains inadequate—registration systems are not fully functional, contributions from platforms are inconsistent, and welfare schemes have yet to make a meaningful impact.
For millions of workers on platforms like Swiggy, Uber, and Urban Company, the reality on the ground remains unchanged: they continue to work without insurance, without a stable income, and without any safety nets. Although they are labelled as “independent contractors,” gig workers enjoy little freedom or autonomy. Their responsibilities, payments, and performance are dictated by opaque algorithms, offering no transparency, no recourse, and no human accountability. A dip in ratings or refusal to complete a task can result in reduced work opportunities or immediate deactivation, often without prior notice or justification.
Even on productive days, workers’ earnings are diminished by expenses such as fuel, mobile data, and platform commissions, often leaving them with less than the legally mandated minimum wage. On lean days, their income barely covers basic living costs. All the risks—financial, physical, and legal—are borne by the worker, while platforms retain full control without corresponding obligations.
The emotional toll is equally severe. Without job stability, paid leave, or consistent working hours, many workers experience burnout, anxiety, and a constant fear of financial collapse triggered by a single algorithmic decision. For women, the challenges are even more acute—limited job assignments, safety concerns, and the absence of maternity or caregiving support hinder equal participation. Some are penalized through biased customer ratings, with no effective system for redressal or appeal.
Despite these challenges, gig workers are not legally permitted to form unions or engage in collective bargaining, as they are not classified as “employees” under Indian labour laws. Nevertheless, grassroots movements such as the All-India Gig Workers Union (AIGWU)[12] and the Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT)[13] have emerged, advocating for better working conditions and legal reforms. However, their demands continue to be ignored or sidelined by policymakers and platforms alike.
The International Labour Organization (ILO)[14] has consistently advocated for universal labour guarantees that apply regardless of employment classification, but India’s regulatory response remains sluggish. Until enforceable rights are granted to this growing workforce, gig workers will continue to be the driving force behind India’s digital economy—carrying its weight without receiving its fair share of benefits.
Global Approaches to Gig Worker Protections
India’s challenge in regulating gig work is not unique—but unlike many other countries, its progress has been sluggish and fragmented. Nations such as the United Kingdom have established a third category of “workers”, granting them rights like minimum wage and paid leave, based on the recognition that platform control entails responsibility[15]. In the United States, California’s AB5 law aimed to regulate gig work through the ABC Test, which presumed employment unless the platform proved otherwise[16]. However, this progress was weakened by Proposition 22, a 2020 ballot measure backed by major platforms, which carved out a less protective category for gig workers[17].
In contrast, the European Union is advancing a unified legal approach through its proposed Directive on Platform Work, which presumes that platform workers are employees unless the company proves otherwise[18]. The directive also mandates algorithmic transparency and grants collective bargaining rights, regardless of employment status. Spain has gone further, enacting the Rider Law after its Supreme Court ruled that food delivery workers are employees, not independent contractors[19]. Similar judicial interventions in France[20], the Netherlands[21], and Germany[22] have reinforced a shift toward substance-over-label classification, emphasizing control, dependency, and limited autonomy as markers of an employment relationship.
These global approaches share a common legal principle: when a platform controls how, when, and what a worker does, employment protections must apply—regardless of contractual language.
In contrast, India’s Code on Social Security, 2020 defines gig workers but fails to grant them enforceable rights. Although the Code outlines welfare schemes, their implementation remains largely ineffective. Core entitlements such as minimum wage, job security, and the right to union representation remain out of reach for the vast majority of gig workers.
As the global momentum moves toward legal clarity, platform accountability, and worker rights, India’s hesitance to act risks leaving millions unprotected in a digitally driven economy. The global message is clear: if gig work is the future, labour laws must evolve to protect it.
Bridging the Gap—From Recognition to Rights
India’s gig economy is no longer an exception—it has become the backbone of modern service delivery. Whether it’s a ride-share service at sunrise or a meal delivered to your doorstep, gig workers are powering the daily activities of urban life. However, as the sector expands, the legal safeguards for these workers remain anchored in a framework of inadequate protections and vague assurances.
According to the ILO Global Commission on the Future of Work, “the time has come for a universal labour guarantee that ensures all workers, regardless of their contractual arrangement or employment status, enjoy fundamental rights.” India should take note of this recommendation[23].
To address the widening gap between digital convenience and legal oversight, the country needs a proactive, rights-based strategy—one that acknowledges gig work not as mere entrepreneurship but as economic dependence disguised by algorithmic management. A logical starting point would be the introduction of a third category of workers—falling between employee and contractor. The United Kingdom calls them “workers.” India can adopt a similar model by creating a “dependent contractor” status, encompassing individuals who may not work in a fixed office or under conventional supervision but still maintain financial and operational reliance on a platform. This classification must guarantee minimum wage protections, social security benefits, and access to grievance redressal mechanisms—essential safeguards to prevent exploitation.
Yet, no reform can succeed without implementation. The Social Security Code, 2020[24], lays out a promising foundation. But unless the central government completes the process of finalizing rules, notifying them, and enforcing aggregator contributions to the social security fund, the law remains merely aspirational. A centralized registration portal, enabling portability of benefits across platforms, could revolutionize how gig workers access their entitlements.
However, platforms themselves must also be held accountable—not just financially, but algorithmically. Workers should be informed about how jobs are allocated, prices are determined, and why deactivations occur. Being governed by an algorithm without the right to an explanation or appeal is not just a technological dilemma—it is a constitutional issue. In a country that upholds the right to life and dignity under Article 21, a lack of transparency in digital labour systems is indefensible[25].
Representation is another missing link. As long as gig workers are not classified as employees, they lack the right to unionize under existing labour laws. Yet, informal unions like the All-India Gig Workers Union (AIGWU)[26] and Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT)[27] have emerged to demand better wages, safety standards, and policy reforms. These organizations should be recognized and granted collective bargaining rights under the Trade Unions Act, 1926[28], in line with ILO Convention No. 98 on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining[29].
Inclusion must also be central to reform. Any labour policy that excludes the needs of women, transgender persons, and people with disabilities is inherently incomplete. Platform regulations must embed anti-harassment protocols, equal opportunity algorithms, and gig-specific maternity and caregiving benefits, ensuring these are not peripheral add-ons but essential to a just digital economy.
What India urgently needs is a dedicated regulatory body—a National Gig Workers Welfare Authority (NGWWA)—to ensure compliance, oversee benefit distribution, address grievances, and recommend reforms. Modelled on institutions like EPFO or ESIC, the NGWWA could form the institutional backbone of India’s app economy, ensuring both equity and accountability.
Conclusion
What began as a flexible side job has become the backbone of India’s service sector. The gig economy now drives digital innovation, urban convenience, and large-scale employment. Yet, beneath this growth lies a workforce that remains legally unprotected and structurally invisible.
This article has shown that while the Code on Social Security, 2020 formally recognises gig workers, it fails to provide them with enforceable rights. Many face job insecurity, lack of negotiation power, and no access to essential protections like health insurance or minimum wage. Controlled by opaque algorithms, gig workers are often penalised or deactivated without due process. In contrast, global models are moving toward laws that prioritise worker dignity over contractual formality.
The message is clear: without strong legal protections, the promise of an inclusive digital economy will remain out of reach. India must act—before flexibility becomes a mask for exploitation.
As India looks ahead to a future shaped by artificial intelligence, automation, and platform-driven growth, it stands at a defining crossroads:
Will we allow technology to widen the gap between labour and law? Or will we use the law to close the gap between innovation and inclusion?
The answer must lie not just in policy tweaks or corporate codes of conduct, but in the Constitution itself. Justice, equality, and dignity are not optional extras—they are foundational values[30]. They must apply to all workers, regardless of whether they clock in through a factory gate or a smartphone app.
❝The future of work is not just about technology. It is about people.[31] ❞
— ILO Global Commission on the Future of Work
India must now legislate with courage, adjudicate with empathy, and regulate with accountability—so that the hands and faces behind the platforms are no longer invisible in the eyes of the law.
References
[1] Code on Social Security 2020, No. 36 of 2020, India Code.
[2] Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act 2023, Act No. 20 of 2023 (India).
[3] NITI Aayog, India’s Booming Gig and Platform Economy: Perspectives and Recommendations on the Future of Work (June 2022) https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-06/Final_Report_Gig_Economy_28_June.pdf accessed 10 July 2025.
[4] Code on Social Security 2020, No. 36 of 2020, s 2(75), India Code.
[5] Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act 2023, Act No. 20 of 2023 (India).
[6] Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Bill 2024
[7] Balwant Rai Saluja v Air India Ltd (2014) 9 SCC 407.
[8] Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] ICR 657.
[9] Case C-692/19 Yodel Delivery Ltd, EU:C:2020:288.
[10] ILO, Digital Labour Platforms and the Future of Work: Towards Decent Work in the Online World (2024) https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_645337/lang–en/index.htm accessed 10 July 2025.
[11] Code on Social Security 2020, No. 36 of 2020, India Code.
[12] AIGWU, ‘Charter of Demands’ (2023) https://aigwu.org accessed 10 July 2025
[13] IFAT, ‘Demands for Fair Working Conditions’ (2023) https://ifat.in accessed 10 July 2025.
[14] ILO Global Commission on the Future of Work, Work for a Brighter Future (ILO 2019) 13 https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_662410/lang–en/index.htm accessed 10 July 2025.
[15] Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] ICR 657.
[16] California Assembly Bill No 5 (2019).
[17] California Proposition 22 (2020), Ballot Measure.
[18] European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on Improving Working Conditions in Platform Work COM (2021) 762 final.
[19] Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court of Spain), Decision No. 805/2020 (Deliveroo Case).
[20] Cour de cassation [French Court of Cassation], Uber France v Mr X, Appeal No. 19-13.316, 4 March 2020.
[21] Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court], Deliveroo Netherlands ruling, Case No. 7044575 CV EXPL 18-9689, 15 January 2019.
[22] German Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht), various proceedings (algorithmic control reviews; general references unless specific case cited).
[23] ILO Global Commission on the Future of Work, Work for a Brighter Future (ILO 2019) 13 https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_662410/lang–en/index.htm accessed 10 July 2025.
[24] Code on Social Security 2020, No. 36 of 2020, India Code.
[25] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[26] AIGWU, ‘Charter of Demands’ (2023) https://aigwu.org accessed 10 July 2025.
[27] IFAT, ‘Demands for Fair Working Conditions’ (2023) https://ifat.in accessed 10 July 2025.
[28] Trade Unions Act 1926, No. 16 of 1926, India Code.
[29] ILO, Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No 98), adopted 1 July 1949, entered into force 18 July 1951.
[30] Constitution of India 1950, Article 14 and 21.
[31] ILO Global Commission on the Future of Work, Work for a Brighter Future (ILO 2019) 1 https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_662410/lang–en/index.htm accessed 10 July 2025.
