In the past decade, the Indian digital economy has seen a rapid rise in new ways of services being delivered and consumed, pioneered by the ride-hailing app Ola in 2010 and followed closely by food delivery giants such as Zomato and Swiggy in 2014.[1] This led to the emergence of a gig economy in which digital platforms connect workers to consumers to deliver food, groceries, and much more. Behind the convenience of a few taps on a smartphone lies a vast workforce navigating traffic, bad weather, and demanding schedules.
Despite this crucial contribution and heavy reliance on the workforce, what is lacking is certainty. As most platforms classify their workers as independent contractors rather than employees, This distinction excludes such workers from labour law protections, including benefits like minimum wages, paid leave, health insurance, and social security: safeguards essentially associated with employment.
This creates a challenge: despite contributing heavily to the economy, the legal protection available to these workers remains ambiguous. This raises a question: do current employment frameworks take into consideration the unique character of gig economy employment?
This article examines the legal status of delivery workers in India, the challenges they face, and the existing labour protection framework. It argues that legal reform should balance innovation with worker welfare by addressing worker classification, algorithmic control, and access to social security.
THE NATURE OF GIG WORK
Gig work is acquired through digital platforms that connect service providers to consumers. A major difference between traditional employment and platform work is task-based payment rather than fixed salaries. Food delivery, grocery delivery, and e-commerce are among the most common forms of gig work. Flexible working hours, the temporary nature of engagement, and algorithmic management are typical features of the gig economy. Workers may choose their working hours and work across multiple platforms, but this flexibility often comes at the cost of income security and labour protections. Platform work has therefore created opportunities for those seeking flexible income, but it also challenges the traditional distinction between employee and independent contractor, creating considerable uncertainty.
LEGAL CLASSIFICATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
The legal classification of delivery workers and the protection of labour in the gig economy are intrinsically linked. Traditionally, labour law distinguishes between employees and contractors based on control, supervision, and economic dependence. Employees enjoy a statutory right to a set of protections, while independent contractors operate outside labour welfare legislation.
Delivery workers are generally classified by platform companies as independent contractors. Companies assert that workers retain the independence to choose their working hours, to accept or reject tasks, and to use more than one platform, and conclude on this basis that no employer-employee relationship exists.
This classification is widely challenged on the grounds that it ignores the actual conditions of work on the platform. Through algorithmic systems, ratings, performance monitoring, and behavioural correction mechanisms, platforms exercise a great deal of control over the work of so-called independent contractors, control that can closely resemble a traditional employment relationship.
The consequences of this classification are significant. Workers classified as independent contractors do not have the right to protections such as minimum wage, paid leave, provident fund, gratuity benefits, or social security. As a direct result, they assume work-related risks without equivalent protections. The rise of gig work has thus highlighted a significant gap in legal protection.
PRACTICAL CHALLENGES FACING DELIVERY WORKERS
Platform-based delivery workers encounter challenges that affect both their financial stability and general well-being. Income instability is a significant concern, as earnings are often contingent on demand fluctuations, incentive structures, and algorithm-based order dispatching. Platform policy changes can significantly reduce workers’ earnings without consultation.
Occupational safety is another important concern. Time-sensitive deliveries increase exposure to road accidents, especially during extreme weather, traffic, and fatigue. Despite these hazardous working conditions, many delivery workers lack safety insurance or compensation.
Workplace safety and income instability are worsened by extensive algorithmic management. Delivery platforms use digital systems to assign, track, and assess the quality of delivery services, and customer ratings may determine both earnings and the allocation of future tasks. Delivery workers have very little visibility into these systems and are consequently unable to contest adverse outcomes. Collective bargaining represents an additional and significant gap: the unregulated and dispersed nature of platform delivery work introduces substantial barriers to organisation, leaving workers unable to negotiate fair terms or address violations collectively.
THE INDIAN LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE
India has begun to recognise the unique status of gig and platform workers through new legislation. The Code on Social Security 2020[2] Marks a considerable advancement in this regard, as it formally recognises gig and platform workers and provides for the design of social security and welfare measures for them.[3] Despite this recognition, however, significant limitations remain: the Code does not extend to platform and gig workers the full range of protections available to traditional employees, leaving issues such as minimum wages, working hours, occupational safety, and trade union rights largely unresolved.
Some state governments in India have also begun to address worker welfare, aiming to provide social security and build welfare infrastructure for gig workers within their jurisdictions. While these initiatives are a positive step, considerable implementation challenges and gaps in coverage remain. Although existing law recognises platform work, further reform is needed to provide meaningful protection.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
Several other jurisdictions have begun regulating platform work in new ways, offering useful points of comparison. In the United Kingdom, courts have in certain cases begun to designate gig workers as “workers,” a status that entitles them to some labour protections regardless of how platforms classify them in their contracts.[4] This approach prioritises the actual working relationship over contractual labels.
The European Union has likewise made strides toward protecting platform workers, introducing reforms aimed at addressing the opaque and arbitrary application of algorithmic management, as well as the misclassification of workers, with a particular emphasis on fairness and accountability in digital labour markets.[5] In the United States, by contrast, gig worker classification has produced varying frameworks from state to state: some states have strengthened worker protections, while others have weakened them in favour of greater contractual flexibility. The UK and EU demonstrate that stronger worker protection can coexist with evolving labour markets.
TOWARDS REFORM
These comparative developments suggest several directions for reform in India. First, clearer standards are needed for determining working conditions, which would reduce uncertainty and help prevent the misclassification of workers. Second, delivery workers require stronger social protection, including health coverage, support after workplace injury, and provision for long-term retirement security; given the physical hazards inherent in delivery work, such safety nets are critical to securing workers’ stability beyond their working years. Third, greater transparency is required in algorithmic decision-making so that workers understand how tasks are assigned and performance is assessed, supported by a meaningful mechanism for challenging biased or adverse outcomes. Finally, legislative reform should support collective bargaining by creating improved frameworks through which workers can organise and engage with platforms.
None of this need come at the cost of growth: digital expansion and fair outcomes are not competing goals, and progress that keeps its promises to workers strengthens rather than undermines the platforms that depend on them.
CONCLUSION
Platform-based delivery services have transformed employment and service delivery across India. Yet this shift has also brought hidden costs, exposing gaps where existing labour law falls short and enforcement is weak. Too often, workers face real occupational hazards without corresponding legal protection. The Code on Social Security 2020 stands as a notable development, but meaningful reform requires addressing more than its surface provisions, extending to income security, occupational safety, algorithmic accountability, and collective voice alike.
The future of India’s gig economy should not be measured solely by its growth but by how well it offers fair pay, dignity, and security to the workers who keep it running. Only when the benefits of the digital economy are shared fairly with those who power it can that promise be considered fulfilled.
Author(s) Name: Anjali Jaiswal (ILS Law College, Pune)
References:
[1] ‘The Rise of Zomato and Swiggy: India’s Food Delivery Giants’ (m.Stock, 05 November 2024) <www.mstock.com/articles/rise-of-zomato-and-swiggy-india-food-delivery-giants> accessed 19 June 2026
[2] The Code on Social Security 2020
[3] Ibid ss 2(35), 2(60), 2(61) and s 114
[4] Uber BV and Ors v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5
[5] Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions in platform work [2024] OJ L 2024/2831, arts 5–6