Authored By: J Ragav
VIT Chennai
Abstract
This article examines the systemic misclassification of Indian platform workers as ‘independent contractors,’ arguing that this label functions as a barrier to labour justice. Through a worker-centric lens, it critiques the 2020 Labour Codes for failing to address algorithmic management and the resulting grievance redressal vacuum. Finally, it proposes a legislative shift toward inclusive ‘worker’ status and human-in-the-loop accountability.
Introduction
Over the past decade, significant transformations have reshaped the landscape of labour and employment. Not only have new types of jobs emerged, but an entirely new work economy has taken shape — one centred on gig and platform workers. Having emerged during the pre-COVID era, this model of work provides human resources for specified tasks without requiring a traditional employer-employee relationship or an established institutional intermediary, both of which are typically more expensive and time-consuming. This is where gig workers offer a more cost-effective and flexible alternative, enabling tasks to be assigned and completed on demand. More precisely, gig and platform workers are those who engage with available opportunities at their discretion, performing work without entering into a conventional employment relationship.
While this arrangement may appear advantageous in the abstract, it carries inherent drawbacks. Since these workers are technically independent contractors who take up opportunities of their own free will, they have historically been excluded from legal protection due to the absence of a formal employment contract. This has created a power imbalance in which opportunity providers impose rigid contract terms, leaving little space for negotiation — particularly given the economic necessity that drives many workers to accept such arrangements. The result is a framework that permits general or specific offers while entirely eliminating the possibility of counter-offers or the application of the principle of audi alteram partem.
This article examines the misclassification of platform workers under Indian labour codes, critiques the inadequacies of the existing legal framework, and proposes mechanisms through which these workers may be afforded proper treatment and protection under law, ensuring their dignity in the modern gig economy.
I. Definitions and Law
From freelancers to food delivery workers, gig workers occupy a simultaneously precarious and promising position in the Indian economy. According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), labour force participation in the tertiary sector increased from 41.1% in 2022–23 to 43.7% in 2023–24, reflecting significant growth in this segment.1 The Percentage Distribution of Workers (PDW) data further shows that 62–65% of urban workers were concentrated in the tertiary sector in 2024–25, an increase from 59–65% in 2018.2 While the government has not enumerated gig and platform workers as a distinct category, these figures capture the rapid expansion of the sector. Despite their significant contributions to the GDP, gig and platform workers remain largely invisible under labour rights frameworks.
The Code on Social Security, 2020 provides the primary statutory recognition of this workforce.3 Section 2(35) defines a gig worker as “a person who performs work or participates in a work arrangement and earns from such activities outside of traditional employer-employee relationship.” Section 2(60) defines platform work as “a work arrangement outside of a traditional employer-employee relationship in which organisations or individuals use an online platform to access other organisations or individuals to solve specific problems or to provide specific services or any such other activities which may be notified by the Central Government, in exchange for payment.” Section 2(61) defines a platform worker as “a person engaged in or undertaking platform work.”
While these definitions under the new labour codes provide formal recognition, a fundamental flaw prevents workers from exercising their rights in any meaningful sense. All three provisions define the nature of the work as something performed outside an “employer-employee relationship,” thereby technically excluding workers from the entitlements that flow from such a relationship. This constitutes a negative definition — one that describes gig and platform workers by the rights they are denied, rather than by the nature of the work they perform.
A further complication arises from the near-indistinguishable overlap between “gig workers” and “platform workers” in practice. Consider a Zepto delivery person: the work is task-based, placing the individual within the definition of a gig worker under Section 2(35); yet the work is also mediated through the Zepto app, making the same individual a platform worker under Section 2(61). This definitional redundancy creates ambiguity rather than clarity.
These structural flaws persist even alongside the social security provisions enacted for this workforce. Sections 109–114 of Chapter IX of the Code on Social Security, 2020 — read with Section 45, which empowers the Central Government to frame schemes for unorganised, gig, and platform workers — provide a degree of social security coverage. However, the foundational definitional problem undermines the effectiveness of even these provisions.
The existing ambiguity in the labour codes does little beyond offering nominal recognition, leaving a loophole through which platforms may continue to disclaim responsibility, and workers remain in a structurally vulnerable position. Examining the common difficulties faced by gig workers illustrates how the absence of a proper legal framework affects both their fundamental and statutory rights.
Key challenges faced by platform and gig workers include the following:
- Absence of minimum wage guarantees
- Lack of active and accessible social security
- Income instability and unpredictability
- Exclusion from collective bargaining rights
- Exclusion from the definition of “worker” for most statutory purposes
- Control and direction exercised through algorithmic management
- No effective formal grievance redressal mechanism, despite provisions under the Act
- Tax uncertainty and compliance difficulties
- Absence of working-time regulation
- Heightened vulnerability to exploitation
- Gender disparities in access and treatment within platform work
II. The Control/Reality Gap
[Section to be completed by author]
III. The Grievance Issue
[Section to be completed by author]
IV. Why Platform Workers Need ‘Worker’ Status
[Section to be completed by author]
V. Reform Proposals
[Section to be completed by author]
Reference(S):
1 NITI Aayog, ‘District-Level Data Portal: Dataset 1817’ (National Data & Analytics Platform, Government of India, 2026) <https://ndap.niti.gov.in/dataset/1817?tab=data> accessed 14 May 2026
2 NITI Aayog, ‘District-Level Data Portal: Dataset 1788’ (National Data & Analytics Platform, Government of India, 2026) <https://ndap.niti.gov.in/dataset/1788?tab=data> accessed 14 May 2026
3 Code on Social Security, 2020, ss 2(35), 2(60), 2(61)
