On December 31, gig and platform workers across cities called for a nationwide log-off strike, protesting what they described as exploitative working conditions, opaque algorithmic control, and the absence of social security. While delivery platforms reported business-as-usual and even record deliveries, the muted public response does not diminish the seriousness of the issues raised. The strike exposed a deeper structural problem that governments across the world are grappling with: how to define work, employment, and responsibility in the platform economy.
Why gig work resists traditional labour regulation
At the core of the dispute lies the contractual relationship between app-based aggregators and the workers who deliver their goods and services. Platform companies consistently refuse to recognise themselves as employers, classifying workers as “partners” or “self-employed contractors”. This legal framing allows corporations to bypass existing labour laws, minimum wage norms, working-hour limits, and social protection obligations.
In practice, however, these workers function as employees. Their work is controlled, monitored, and evaluated by the platform, yet the absence of a formal employer–employee relationship places them outside the reach of conventional labour regulation.
Opacity, algorithms, and unequal power
Most gig workers either operate without any explicit contract or are bound by dense, technical agreements that they scarcely understand. This opacity benefits corporations, enabling unilateral changes to pay structures, incentive systems, and penalties without negotiation or accountability.
The labour process is governed by algorithms that determine wages, work allocation, ratings, and even termination. There is little transparency in how these systems function, and no effective grievance redressal mechanisms. Deviations—sometimes caused by factors beyond workers’ control—are penalised automatically. This creates a system of enforced self-exploitation, where workers bear all risks while corporations retain all control.
Where Indian labour law falls short
India’s labour law framework has struggled to adapt to this new form of work. The labour codes enacted in 2020 sought to consolidate and modernise labour regulation, but gig workers remain only partially recognised. The “”, the most fundamental of the four codes, does not apply to gig and platform workers at all.
They are mentioned only in the Code on Social Security, 2020, and even there, recognition is limited. The code merely obligates aggregators to contribute to a social security fund, without granting workers enforceable rights. There are no statutory guarantees on working hours, paid leave, health coverage, or compensation for accidents, leaving workers exposed to income shocks and occupational hazards.
Precarity in a labour-surplus economy
In a country marked by high unemployment and widespread informal work, gig employment is unlikely to disappear. For many, it represents the only available livelihood option. Yet, these workers resemble the most vulnerable forms of casual labour—without job security, income stability, or social protection—while being portrayed as entrepreneurial “partners”.
All risks related to illness, accidents, or downtime are transferred entirely onto workers. The platform model thus deepens precarity while masking it behind the language of flexibility and independence.
Public indifference and the limits of protest
The response to the December strike also revealed a social divide. The urban middle class, which benefits most from app-based convenience, showed little solidarity. Corporations, insulated by consumer demand and market dominance, had few incentives to negotiate. This leaves the state as the only actor capable of correcting the imbalance of power between platforms and workers.
Global and domestic precedents for recognition
Recognising gig workers as employees is neither radical nor unprecedented. Several countries in the Global North have moved in this direction, and even in the Global South, countries like Mexico and Brazil have begun redefining platform labour relations.
Within India, states such as Rajasthan have enacted laws, and Karnataka has proposed legislation to address gig worker welfare. However, these efforts largely stop at mandating social security contributions, without fully recognising workers’ employment status or extending comprehensive labour rights.
Why recognition is the starting point
As gig and platform workers become one of the largest and most vulnerable segments of India’s workforce, piecemeal welfare measures are insufficient. Any meaningful regulation must begin by recognising them as workers and platform companies as employers. Only then can labour laws relating to wages, working conditions, collective bargaining, and social security be meaningfully applied.
What to note for Prelims?
- Definition and features of gig and platform work
- Coverage of gig workers under the Code on Wages and Code on Social Security
- Key issues: algorithmic control, lack of contracts, absence of social security
- State-level initiatives for gig worker welfare
What to note for Mains?
- Challenges in regulating platform-based labour under existing labour laws
- Employer–employee relationship debate in the gig economy
- Limitations of welfare-only approaches without rights-based recognition
- Role of the state in balancing innovation, convenience, and labour protection
The gig economy has redefined how work is organised, but it has not erased the need for rights, accountability, and protection. Without formal recognition of gig workers as employees, regulation will remain superficial, and precarity will continue to be built into the very architecture of platform-based work.
