Author: Samrudhi Mohapatra
College: SOA National Institute of Law
Abstract
Drivers, delivery partners, freelancers, and gig and platform workers who find employment through digital applications occupy a precarious position between employee and independent contractor, a classification that dictates whether they are entitled to minimum wages, social security, or protection from arbitrary termination. The first central law in India to identify gig and platform workers as a separate category was the Code on Social Security, 2020. However, more than five years after the president’s assent, its Chapter IX benefits have not yet been implemented. The statutory framework, the ongoing Supreme Court case aiming to recognize gig workers as employees, the wave of state laws from Rajasthan to Jharkhand establishing welfare boards financed by aggregator contributions, and comparative UK jurisprudence that has compelled a reconsideration of how platform control translates into legal responsibility are all examined in this article. It contends that India’s welfare-board model primarily ignores job security and collective bargaining while addressing social security shortfalls without addressing the more fundamental issue of work status.
To the Point
Since aggregator platforms arrange their connection with workers as independent contracting rather than employment, India’s gig workforce estimated at over seven million in 2020 and expected to surpass twenty million by 2030 has historically been exempt from labor laws. The Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers petitioned the Supreme Court in 2021 for a ruling that gig workers are “unorganised workers” entitled to statutory benefits after the Code on Social Security, 2020 broke new ground by defining gig and platform workers separately from both employees and self-employed. However, implementation of the law has stalled. Because aggregator platforms arrange their connection with workers as independent contracting rather than employment, India’s gig workforce estimated at over seven million in 2020 and predicted to approach twenty million by 2030 has historically been exempt from labor laws. The Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers approached the Supreme Court in 2021 to request a ruling that gig workers are “unorganised workers” entitled to statutory benefits after the Code on Social Security, 2020 broke new ground by defining gig and platform workers separately from both employees and self-employed people. However, implementation of the law has stalled.
Use of Legal Jargon
• According to Section 2(35) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, a gig worker is someone who works outside of a regular employer-employee relationship and makes money doing so.
• Aggregator: A digital middleman that links customers and sellers of services, such ride-hailing or food delivery services, and is required by Indian welfare laws to make contributions to worker welfare funds.
• Worker Status (Limb (b) Worker): Under Section 230(3)(b) of the work Rights Act, 1996, this intermediate work category is recognized in English law. It covers people who are neither full employees nor truly self-employed, and they are entitled to paid leave and minimum wage.
• Welfare Cess: Per ride or delivery, rather than as a percentage of compensation, aggregators are required by Indian state gig-worker legislation to make a tiny transaction-based contribution into a designated welfare fund.
• Forced Labor (Article 23): Gig-worker petitioners use this constitutional ban on forced labor to contend that algorithmic control in the absence of statutory protection equates to exploitative labor.
• Purposive Interpretation: This approach to statutory interpretation, which is essential to the Uber BV v. Aslam decision, ascertains the meaning of a phrase by referring to the protective aim of the legislation rather than the exact language of a contract.
The Proof
Four Indian states Rajasthan, Karnataka, Bihar, and Jharkhandhave passed platform-worker welfare laws as of 2025; Telangana’s draft bill is still pending. Together, these states cover a workforce that NITI Aayog estimated to be 7.7 million in 2020 and is predicted to continue rising quickly. The Union government informed the Supreme Court in February 2025 that regulations to operationalize gig worker benefits were still being considered, despite Chapter IX of the Code on Social Security receiving presidential assent on September 29, 2020. This shows a persistent gap between statutory recognition and enforceable entitlement. In the meantime, Karnataka’s law, which mandates that aggregators pay a welfare fee ranging from fifty paise to one rupee per ride, depending on the type of vehicle, has already sparked litigation from major platforms in 2026, demonstrating that constitutional validity and compliance are still disputed at every stage of the legislative process.
Case Laws
1. Uber BV & Ors. v. Aslam & Ors., [2021] UKSC 5 (Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, decided 19 February 2021)
The Court unanimously decided that Uber drivers qualified as “workers” under Section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996, which entitled them to paid annual leave and the national minimum wage. The Court reasoned that worker status should be determined by the reality of the working relationship and the goal of protective legislation, not by the language of Uber’s contracts. Gig-worker proponents in India have used the ruling, which stated that drivers were working from the minute they went onto the app, were inside their authorized territory, and were eager to take trips, to support their claim that algorithmic control is comparable to conventional employer control.
2. Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers (IFAT) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1068/2021 (Supreme Court of India, filed September 2021, pending)
IFAT and two individual drivers petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming that contracts between aggregators like Ola, Uber, Swiggy, and Zomato and their employees violate Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. They also requested a ruling that gig workers are considered “unorganised workers” under the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008, while the Code on Social Security is being fully implemented. The Court strengthened judicial control of executive delay even without resolving the underlying employment-status issue when it ordered the Union government to submit an affidavit with a clear schedule for crafting rules under Chapter IX of the Code during a hearing in February 2025.
3. Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Karnataka High Court, interim order dated 3 July 2026)
The Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025 was challenged in petitions filed by IAMAI, Zomato, Zepto, Swiggy, Urban Company, and Valmo Transportation as being incompatible with the central Code on Social Security. Justice M. Nagaprasanna declined to stay the law but ordered the platforms to deposit disputed welfare fees with the court registry pending a final decision, balancing the interests of aggregators, the state, and workers who stand to gain from the welfare fund.
4. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Supreme Court of California, decided 30 April 2018)
The “ABC test,” which assumes a worker is an employee unless the hiring entity proves the worker is free from its control, performs work outside its usual business, and is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, is widely cited in Indian scholarship on gig-worker classification despite being a foreign precedent. This standard is significantly more worker-protective than the multi-factor control tests Indian courts have traditionally applied.
Conclusion
The more fundamental question of whether a gig worker is an employee entitled to job security and collective bargaining remains unresolved before the Supreme Court in the IFAT litigation. India’s approach to gig-worker rights has thus far prioritized social security over employment status, establishing welfare boards and cess-funded benefit schemes at the state level. Other jurisdictions have been willing to look past contractual labels to the underlying reality of platform control, as demonstrated by comparative experience from the United Kingdom’s purposive approach in Aslam and California’s ABC test in Dynamex. Indian courts have not yet been asked to make a definitive decision about this. Gig workers in India will continue to rely on a patchwork of state welfare laws that offer a safety net without addressing the precariousness of the underlying work relationship itself until Chapter IX of the Code on Social Security is operationalized and the Supreme Court renders a decision on the IFAT petition.
