Labour Rights in the Gig Economy

The rise of the gig economy has redefined the contours of employment in the twenty-first century. Characterized by short-term, flexible, and task-based work arrangements, the gig economy is driven by digital platforms such as Uber, Ola, Swiggy, Zomato, Amazon, and Urban Company. These platforms connect consumers with workers providing transport, delivery, home services, and freelance tasks. While the gig economy has created new opportunities for millions of workers in India, it has also raised critical questions about the legal status and protection of such workers. Traditional labour laws were designed for employer–employee relationships, but gig work blurs these boundaries, leaving workers vulnerable in the absence of clear rights and protections.

The central challenge lies in the classification of gig workers. Most platforms treat them as “independent contractors” rather than employees, thereby avoiding obligations such as minimum wages, provident fund, health benefits, or job security. Workers are paid on a per-task basis, with earnings fluctuating depending on demand, ratings, and algorithmic control. This precarious arrangement deprives them of social security and bargaining power while shifting risks—such as fuel costs, equipment maintenance, and even occupational hazards—onto the workers themselves. The absence of a stable income and benefits makes gig work highly insecure, despite its flexibility.

In India, the legal recognition of gig workers came only recently. The Code on Social Security, 2020 defines gig workers and platform workers and extends certain welfare provisions to them. It mandates the creation of social security schemes related to life and disability cover, accident insurance, health and maternity benefits, and old-age protection. The law also envisages a social security fund to be partly financed by contributions from aggregators. This recognition is a progressive step, marking the first attempt to bring gig workers within the ambit of labour rights. However, the implementation remains uncertain, as detailed rules and funding mechanisms are yet to be operationalized.

Judicial interventions globally have also shaped the discourse. In the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court in Uber BV v. Aslam (2021) held that Uber drivers were “workers” entitled to minimum wage and paid leave, despite being labeled as independent contractors. In the United States, debates over California’s Proposition 22, which exempted gig companies from treating drivers as employees, highlight the continuing tension between flexibility and protection. These developments have influenced Indian debates, where courts may be called upon to interpret whether platform control over workers amounts to an employer–employee relationship.

The concerns of gig workers extend beyond social security. Algorithmic management, where work allocation, pricing, and ratings are controlled by opaque algorithms, often leads to arbitrary outcomes and exploitation. Workers face sudden changes in incentives, deactivation of accounts without explanation, and constant surveillance through GPS tracking. Collective bargaining is also difficult, as platform workers are dispersed and treated as self-employed. Recent strikes by delivery workers in cities like Bengaluru and Hyderabad demonstrate growing frustration and the need for collective representation in the gig sector.

The gig economy also raises questions of gender and inclusivity. While it creates opportunities for women, especially in flexible home-based services, women workers often face harassment, safety risks, and discriminatory practices. Lack of childcare benefits, maternity protection, and health insurance further exacerbate their vulnerabilities. Similarly, persons with disabilities, who could benefit from flexible digital work, remain excluded due to inadequate accessibility and support.

Balancing innovation with labour rights is the key challenge. Over-regulation could stifle the growth of platforms that have created jobs for millions, but under-regulation risks perpetuating a new form of digital exploitation. The way forward lies in creating a hybrid model that combines flexibility with basic rights. Social security schemes, mandatory insurance, fair wages, and transparent algorithmic governance are necessary safeguards. Platform companies must be made accountable for ensuring worker welfare, while the State must play an enabling role through policy and regulation. Encouraging collective representation of gig workers and dialogue with aggregators will also help in building a more equitable gig economy.

In conclusion, the gig economy represents both opportunity and challenge for labour rights in India. While it has expanded work opportunities in innovative ways, it has also exposed the inadequacy of traditional labour frameworks to protect workers in new-age employment structures. The recognition of gig workers under the Code on Social Security, 2020 is an important step, but comprehensive implementation and enforcement are needed. The future of labour rights in the gig economy will depend on how effectively India can craft policies that balance the dynamism of digital platforms with the constitutional vision of social and economic justice.