The ILO’s new Convention on decent work in the platform economy sets a global benchmark for gig-worker protections. This piece examines how India’s emerging legal framework measures up, identifying gaps in minimum wages, social security, algorithmic transparency, and collective rights. It argues for a coherent, rights-based approach to platform work beyond fragmented welfare measures.

The adoption of ILO Convention No. 193 on Decent Work in the Platform Economy on 12 June 2026 marked a historic milestone in international labour rights. As the first legally binding international treaty establishing minimum labour standards for gig and platform workers, it sets a global benchmark for regulating work in the digital economy.

Like all ILO Conventions, however, its provisions become legally binding only for member states that ratify them. The voting pattern highlights the geopolitical divisions surrounding platform work regulation. While most European Union member states, Brazil, Australia, Canada and the majority of African countries voted in favour, the United States, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand opposed the Convention. India and the United Kingdom abstained.

ILO voting is tripartite, with each member state represented by two government delegates, one employers’ delegate and one workers’ delegate, all voting independently. India’s abstention was cast solely by its government delegate; both the employers’ and workers’ delegates voted in favour, indicating a divergence between the government’s position and those of industry and labour representatives.

The abstention likely reflects concerns expressed during the three-year negotiations about preserving regulatory flexibility to encourage innovation and avoiding premature international commitments while domestic reforms continue. Nevertheless, the Convention now establishes an international benchmark against which India’s central and state regulatory frameworks are likely to be assessed, irrespective of ratification.

This piece examines: How India’s labour laws related to gig and platform workers evolved? How do they match up to the standards set in the Convention? What does this mean for the country’s workers?

Evolution of India’s labour laws related to gig and platform workers

Platform-based gig workers in India remain largely outside formal labour protections. Although both the Centre and states can legislate on labour, India lacks a comprehensive national framework for platform work. This reflects the country’s broader informal economy, where over 80 percent of workers lack formal protections. Rather than creating informality, digital platforms have digitised and algorithmically managed pre-existing informal labour arrangements. 

Before 2020, several labour laws attempted, albeit unevenly, to extend limited protections to informal workers. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 regulated contract labour in larger establishments, while the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 established welfare boards funded through a construction cess. The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 created a National Social Security Board to recommend welfare schemes covering health, maternity, disability and old-age protection. However, its impact remained limited because it empowered the Board only to recommend schemes rather than creating enforceable social security entitlements.

Emergence of digital platforms

Globally, digital labour platforms have expanded rapidly over the past 15 years. Early milestones included Amazon’s Amazon Mechanical Turk (2005), which pioneered online crowd-work, followed by Uber Technologies’ ride-hailing platform (2010) and food delivery services such as Deliveroo and DoorDash (both 2013). Platforms are not a monolithic category. They include digital marketplaces for buying, selling or renting goods, and service platforms facilitating location-based work (transport, delivery and household services), web-based work (freelancing and micro-work), and intermediary services such as job aggregators.

India’s platform economy grew rapidly after 2014, driven by widespread smartphone adoption, affordable mobile internet, digital payments and venture capital investments, before accelerating sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic. As services offered through apps such as Uber, Amazon, Blinkit and Urban Company expanded, they drew heavily on India’s large informal workforce. In fact, by 2020, the number of gig workers was estimated to be about 7.7 million, making up 6.7% of the non-agricultural workforce (1.5% of the workforce) and projected to reach up to 23.5 million by 2029-30 and 61.6 million by 2047. 

These platforms, however, classified the workers as independent/self-employed gig workers rather than employees – thereby replicating their business model in the Global North. It enabled them to avoid obligations relating to minimum wages, paid leave and social security while exercising considerable control through algorithms. 

Mounting concerns over these working conditions prompted legislative action. The Code on Social Security, 2020 became India’s first law to define gig workers, platform workers and aggregators and established a framework for their social security, but it was not notified till 2025. In the interim, Rajasthan pioneered a law in 2023 to protect platform-based gig workers. This was followed by four other states – Karnataka, Bihar, Jharkhand and Telangana. These laws introduced stronger protections, including welfare boards, registration systems, and algorithmic transparency.

Comparison of India’s domestic legal framework with ILO Convention No. 193

The ILO Convention provides a detailed framework for ensuring fair working conditions, social protection, algorithmic transparency, occupational safety, collective rights, and effective access to justice in the digital economy. The Convention binds only those member states that ratify it. The ratifying states must still translate its provisions into domestic law before workers can invoke them. 

Box 1: Key Provisions of ILO Convention No. 193 Source: International Labour Organization, Convention concerning decent work in the platform economy, 2026 (No. 193), June 12, 2026.

Although India recognised gig and platform workers through the Code on Social Security, 2020, state laws and emerging social protection measures, its legal framework remains only partially aligned with the ILO Convention. Comparing the Convention with India’s laws highlights areas of convergence, key gaps and priorities for future reform.

At the national level, the Code on Social Security, 2020 is the only law that formally recognises gig and platform workers. It empowers the Central Government to frame social security schemes and requires aggregators to contribute to a welfare fund. While implementation has begun through worker registration on the Aadhaar-linked e-Shram portal and notification of the Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026, the welfare fund and aggregator contributions are yet to become operational, leaving workers without substantive benefits.

Other national laws provide limited protection. The Code on Wages, 2019 excludes gig workers from statutory minimum wages, while the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 does not apply to them. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDPA”) safeguards personal data but does not regulate algorithmic management or provide workers with rights to explanation or human review of automated decisions.

In contrast, some of the states have enacted dedicated platform worker laws that address many of these gaps, although none fully meets the standards of the ILO Convention (see Table 1).

Table 1: Comparison of the ILO Convention with India’s Code on Social Security, 2020 and State Laws for platform-based gig workersSources: International Labour Organization, Convention concerning decent work in the platform economy, 2026 (No. 193), June 12, 2026; Code on Social Security, 2020 and respective Acts (Rajasthan, Karnataka, Telangana, Jharkhand and Bihar).

As Table 1 shows, the state laws themselves are not uniform, although they do share a common architecture:

• Mandatory registration of workers and platforms;
• Tripartite welfare board;
• Welfare fund partially financed through a transaction-based cess on aggregators;
• Board-administered social security schemes;
• Grievance redressal mechanism; and
• Penalties for non-compliance.

The differences lie in enforcement design and maturity. Rajasthan, the earliest, omits algorithmic transparency rules and any Internal Dispute Resolution Committee (IDRC), while Bihar, Jharkhand, Karnataka, and Telangana each mandate algorithmic disclosure and IDRCs, at varying worker-count thresholds. Penalties diverge sharply too. Karnataka, Bihar and Jharkhand also allow workers to refuse work for a limited number of times (see Table 2 for more details).

Table 2: Distinguishing Features of Each of the Five State Acts

Sources: Respective Acts (Rajasthan, Karnataka, Telangana, Jharkhand and Bihar).

Implications for India’s platform economy

While the ILO Convention has established global standards for platform workers, India’s current legal framework remains fragmented and largely welfare centric rather than rights based. India is not yet a signatory to the Convention since it has a long distance to go in terms of fulfilling the obligations laid down for those who will ratify it. But going forward its legal framework for platform workers would be measured against the standards set by the Convention.

What would it take for India’s legal framework to catch up to the obligations laid down in the ILO Convention?

First, India lacks a uniform definition of gig and platform workers. The Code on Social Security, 2020 distinguishes between “gig workers” and “platform workers,” whereas the five state laws use varying definitions or the terms interchangeably, despite primarily regulating platform-based work. The Convention also requires that employment status be determined by the actual nature of work and remuneration, rather than contractual labels. In contrast, Indian law creates a separate category of workers “outside the traditional employer-employee relationship,” effectively allowing platforms to classify workers without examining the reality of their working relationship, which promises flexibility but exercises considerable control.

Second, the Convention requires minimum wage protection, yet neither the Centre nor the states prescribe a wage floor for gig workers. Earnings continue to be shaped by algorithmic pricing, commission deductions and cost-shifting, leaving workers without guaranteed minimum remuneration.

Third, although Karnataka, Telangana, Bihar and Jharkhand have introduced algorithmic transparency provisions, there is no national framework governing algorithmic management. Existing state laws require disclosure of automated systems, but comprehensive rights to explanation and meaningful human review of adverse decisions remain uneven.

Fourth, while registered workers can access selected social security schemes through the e-Shram portal and all five states have established welfare boards, these boards replicate a model that has historically suffered from low registration, administrative inefficiencies and under-utilised funds.

Finally, the Convention recognises collective bargaining as a fundamental labour right. In India, however, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 applies only to employees, excluding gig and platform workers. None of the five state laws fills this gap, leaving worker organisations without statutory recognition or enforceable bargaining rights.

Roadmap for India

India need not ratify the ILO Convention immediately, but can use it as a roadmap for phased reform. Priorities include harmonising definitions of gig and platform workers, ensuring universal social security, extending occupational safety protections, guaranteeing minimum earnings, regulating algorithmic management through transparency and human review, and recognising collective bargaining rights. 

As the Convention becomes the global benchmark for platform work, India’s fragmented framework will increasingly be judged against it. Several state laws already provide the building blocks; what remains is a coherent national framework backed by political commitment.