The Aakhya Weekly #173 | India’s Labour Codes & the Big Gig Fix

Nov 28, 2025

In Focus: What India’s New Labour Codes Mean for Gig Workers

After years of drafts, discussions, and deliberate regulatory design, India’s long-awaited labour overhaul has finally moved from legislative promise to regulatory reality. The nationwide rollout of the four labour codes marks a structural shift in how the country defines work, compensates labour, and governs the fast-growing universe of gig and platform employment. With new rules on wages, social security, compliance, and dispute resolution now taking effect, India is not merely updating an old framework; it is attempting to build a labour architecture fit for a digital and decentralised economy. These new laws mark a structural reset: they streamline a patchwork of 29 legacy statutes, simplify compliance, and, crucially for the first time, explicitly recognise gig and platform workers within India’s social security net.

While the reforms open a path for digital-era work to gain legitimacy, they also pose deep policy challenges. Without robust implementation, the legal recognition of gig workers may remain symbolic. Moreover, the timing and substance of the reform send a geopolitical signal: India is retooling its labour architecture not just for fairness, but to attract global capital, scale its platform economy, and leverage its workforce in global value chains.

Gig Workers Finally Within the Regulatory Fold

The single most consequential change for millions of delivery riders, drivers, and task-workers is the formal inclusion of gig and platform workers under the Social Security Code. Defined explicitly in the new law, aggregators are required to contribute between 1–2% of their annual turnover, capped at 5% of payouts to these workers, into welfare and social protection funds. The law also mandates portability: benefits such as provident funds, insurance, ESIC-style health cover, and gratuity should be accessible across states and platforms.

From Law to Lifeline?

Legal classification alone doesn’t translate into enforceable safeguards, and gig workers sit at the intersection of regulatory ambiguity and institutional gaps. Many protections remain aspirational until backed by robust implementation frameworks, compliance mechanisms, and sustained state capacity. Understanding these structural risks is essential to evaluating whether the new labour codes can genuinely shift outcomes on the ground. A legal name doesn’t guarantee substantive protection, and several risk points need scrutiny:

Implementation bottlenecks and capacity challenges
a) While the law mandates contributions, the systems to collect, monitor, and disburse remain nascent. States and central agencies must set up digital registries, grievance portals, and benefit-calculation mechanisms swiftly, without which portability will be more promising than practice.
b) The task is enormous. Past labour-law enforcement in India has been uneven; inspectorate capacity is thin, and risk-based inspections might favour guidance over enforcement.
Financial burden and cost-pass-through
a) Aggregators are legally liable for a new levy. While that supports insurance and PF for gig workers, platforms may pass costs to users, making rides, deliveries, or outsourced micro-tasks more expensive.
b) Small platforms may struggle with margin compression or compliance load, potentially shrinking or exiting markets.
Fragmented benefit coverage
a) Though social security is mandated under the Social Security Code, other protections, such as workplace safety or industrial relations, do not automatically apply to gig workers under the same terms. Critics already argue that gig workers remain outside core protections.
b) Without a strong “employment presumption”, platforms can still define workers as contractors, limiting collective bargaining and workers’ agency.
Political and labour resistance
a) Trade unions have strongly opposed the codes, warning that the reforms are “anti-labour”. They argue that raising the layoff threshold (from 100 to 300 workers) weakens oversight and worker security.

What Other Countries Tried

International experience offers mixed lessons.

• European Union (Platform Work Directive). The EU moved decisively toward clarifying employment status and algorithmic transparency. The EU Platform Work Directive creates presumptions that can lead to the reclassification of workers as employees and requires platforms to disclose key aspects of automated management. The Directive intentionally leans on member states to implement enforcement and dispute mechanisms. Its lesson: legal standards matter, but effective reclassification depends on accessible, low-cost adjudication and political will to back enforcement.

• Spain’s “Rider Law.” Spain’s 2021 rider law presumed delivery couriers were employees and introduced limits on algorithmic management, a blunt instrument that forced many platforms to adapt contracts and pay structures. It demonstrates that strong presumption rules can change platform economics rapidly but also provoke legal pushback and creative workaround strategies by firms.

• California (AB5 / Proposition 22). California’s experience is instructive for the political economy: a legal push to classify many gig workers as employees (AB5) was met by powerful platform opposition, culminating in Proposition 22, a voter-backed carve-out that preserved contractor status but created a bespoke benefits package. The U.S. example shows how well-resourced platforms can shape outcomes and how political responses (ballot measures, litigation) can create fragmented protection regimes.

• United Kingdom & Australia. The UK’s Taylor Review and subsequent policy debates emphasised balancing flexibility with minimum standards (minimum wages, pensions, protections for zero-hours workers). For instance, Australia’s courts and commissions have, at times, upheld contractor status, leaving protections to industrial instruments and bargaining in some sectors. The takeaway: piecemeal reforms without clear financing and dispute resolution systems leave gig workers vulnerable.

Geopolitical & Developmental Implications

India’s labour reforms carry implications that extend well beyond worker welfare, positioning the country strategically within a shifting global economic landscape. As international investors seek emerging markets with productive, cost-efficient, and well-regulated workforces, India’s modernised labour framework signals readiness to host large-scale manufacturing, digital services, and platform-driven sectors. Simplified compliance through single registrations, unified inspections, and clearer rules makes India more attractive to multinational firms seeking regulatory stability. The formal recognition of gig workers also aligns India with global trends, such as the EU’s move toward stronger platform protections, helping prevent regulatory arbitrage without deterring investment. Ultimately, labour clarity strengthens India’s bid for a larger role in global value chains by reducing uncertainty and enhancing predictability. The reform thus operates as a calculated geoeconomic signal: that India intends to be a credible, competitive, and future-ready destination for long-term capital.

Strategic Recommendations:

To ensure these reforms translate into real benefits for gig workers and to lock in India’s geopolitical advantage, policymakers should consider the following:

Fast-track a National Platform-Worker Registry
Launch a digital registry that links gig workers, platforms, and benefit schemes. Use Aadhaar / UPI infrastructure to verify identities, earnings, and contributions. Tie the registry to a grievance-redress mechanism and an automated benefits disbursal system.
Adopt a Hybrid Status Presumption Framework
Create a rebuttable presumption that a worker is an “employee” when a platform exerts control over pricing, routes, or customer interactions unless the platform can prove otherwise. This ensures the application of core rights (e.g., dispute resolution, collective bargaining) when platforms treat workers like employees, even if contracts say otherwise.
Subsidy / Transitional Support for Platforms
For small or early-stage aggregators, provide a phased compliance window or a temporary subsidy to help absorb the cost of social security contributions, avoiding a scenario where platforms collapse or pass the cost entirely to consumers. Use a portion of the social security fund to seed coverage rollout in key gig sectors (e.g., delivery, ride-hailing) before scaling broadly.
Strengthen Enforcement Mechanisms
Set up specialised grievance tribunals (digitally enabled) for gig worker disputes, enabling fast adjudication without the burden of traditional labour courts. Mandate periodic mandatory audits for large platforms to ensure compliance with contributions and worker classification norms.

An Implementational Test, Not an Ideological Victory

The Labour Codes place India in the company of a select group of jurisdictions that are trying to square digitalised work with social protection. But law is only the first step. If New Delhi translates the Codes’ gig-worker language, India can build a global model for inclusive platform work. Be it automated collection, portable entitlements, or robust enforcement, if this flexibility is balanced with innovation, the results could be a net positive. If it fails to design funding, adjudication and portability mechanisms, the Codes risk becoming aspirational text with little impact on those who need protection most.

The policy challenge is therefore managerial and fiscal as much as legislative: to convert statutory recognition of gig work into reliable, portable, and enforceable social protection that preserves livelihood flexibility without leaving workers exposed. India’s advantage, a deep digital public infrastructure, and large formal-informal mixes can make that conversion possible; the political will to align platforms, states, and social funds will determine whether the Codes are a turning point or a missed opportunity.

A Few Good Reads

John Spencer and Dr Lauren Dagan Amoss’ piece argues that India has shifted to a pre-emptive, coercive security doctrine post–Operation Sindoor, showing how India now responds to terror and signals deterrence.
Shashi Tharoor suggests that India must reject digital capitulation and firmly pursue digital sovereignty, warning against trade clauses that erode autonomy, and the risks of a new “digital raj”.
Harsh V. Pant and Atul Kumar analyse how China’s AI-driven disinformation tactics are applied to market its weapons, mixing propaganda, pricing, and pressure to push its arms exports despite weak performance.
This piece by Somak Raychaudhury explores why India’s plan to bring back Indian-origin star faculty will only work with real institutional reform.
Thomas Fazi warns that the EU’s rebranded “Chat Control” quietly normalises mass scanning of private messages under the guise of child protection, and that systems inevitably erode encryption and expand state surveillance.

The Aakhya Weekly

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?