Introduction

Towards the end of 2025, a section of the gig workforce, comprising delivery partners of major food delivery and quick commerce platforms, went on strike, leading to a temporary service disruption in several cities and drawing public attention to the operational realities of India’s gig economy.[i] This coincided with increasing scrutiny of “10-minute delivery” models.[ii]

The protest and the ensuing media coverage highlighted not only the operational challenges faced by these platforms but also deeper concerns about working conditions, compensation structures, and the limited legal protections available to gig workers. During this period, delivery partners associated with Blinkit and other quick commerce platforms raised concerns over the operational pressure created by the compulsory ultra-fast delivery timelines.

Following worker protests, public criticism, and increased regulatory scrutiny of safety and working conditions, platforms such as Blinkit withdrew the compulsory 10-minute delivery promise. This development reflected growing recognition of the risks imposed on gig workers and marked a broader shift towards re-accessing speed-driven business models in favour of worker safety, feasibility, and compliance[iii].

The strike by delivery partners of Blinkit and other quick commerce platforms, along with Blinkit’s subsequent decision to withdraw its compulsory 10-minute delivery model, served as a reminder to companies that are heavily dependent on gig and platform workers (who are the backbone of their operations[iv]), to re-evaluate their labour practices, compliance frameworks, and risk management strategies in a rapidly changing regulatory environment.  In this context, India’s  Code on Social Security, 2020[v] (“Labour Code/Social Security  Code”) represents a legislative response to these evolving regulatory and operational concerns. The Social Code formally recognises gig and platform workers and, at the same time, introduces new compliance expectations for businesses operating within platform-based models.

This article traces the legal evolution of gig workers’ regulation, identifies key compliance risks associated with gig-based business models, and examines the role of structured legal solutions, such as a Fractional General Counsel (“Fractional GC”), supported by strategic legal oversight to mitigate regulatory risks and ensure compliant and sustainable workforce structuring.

Who are GIG Workers?

A “Gig Worker” is defined under Section 2(35)[vi] of the Code of Social Security as a person who performs work or participates in a work arrangement and earns from such activities outside of the traditional employer-employee relationship. Such engagements are typically structured as short-term, task- or project-based assignments, mostly via digital platforms.[vii] These types of engagements are characterised by flexible work allocation, remuneration linked to task completion, and the absence of fixed working hours and long-term continuity.

Gig workers are generally treated as independent contractors. are not entitled to many of the statutory employment benefits that apply to regular employees.[viii]  In India, this model is widely adopted by platform-based companies and aggregators operating across delivery, ride-hailing, logistics, and professional services.[ix]

Position under The Old Legal Framework

Prior to the enactment of the new Labour Codes[x], Indian labour laws did not specifically recognise gig or platform workers as a distinct category. Existing statutes such as the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and various State Shops and Establishments Acts were all built around a traditional employer-employee or workman relationship. As a result, digital platform-based work, characterised by flexible onboarding, algorithmic task allocation, and non-exclusive engagements, did not neatly fit within this framework.

For companies engaging gig workers, this resulted in regulatory uncertainty rather than clear compliance standards. In the absence of statutory definitions for gig or platform workers, engagement structures were assessed on a case-by-case basis, thereby increasing the risk of worker misclassification, inconsistent enforcement by authorities, and legal disputes. In practice, companies relied heavily on carefully drafted contracts and internal policies to manage compliance in the absence of a clear legislative framework.

Changes Introduced under The New Labour Codes

The Social Security Code formally recognise gig and platform workers within India’s statutory framework. Section 2(35) defines a “gig worker,” while Section 2(61) defines a “platform worker” as a gig worker engaged through an online platform connecting consumers with service providers. Significantly, the Code does not classify gig or platform workers as employees.

Chapter IX introduces a welfare-oriented framework, empowering Central and State Governments to design social security schemes for gig and platform workers, including life and disability insurance, health benefits, maternity support, and old-age protection. It also provides for a national registration portal (Section 113), dedicated social security funds (Section 110), and contribution mechanisms involving aggregators and government authorities (Section 114).

As a result, companies engaging gig workers must align their contracts and operational practices with statutory definitions and evolving welfare obligations, while continuing to manage misclassification risks. The Labour Codes thus shift gig work from a legal grey area into a regulated, though still evolving, compliance framework.

Legal Risks and Compliance Challenges for GIG-Based Businesses

Businesses that rely heavily on gig and platform workers to build their businesses will find the legal and compliance landscape after the Labour Codes to be one that not only causes operational difficulties but also exposes them to greater legal risk across different regulatory issues. Economic dependence, supervision, control over pricing, and disciplinary actions are among the factors that determine the nature of engagement. [xi]

Major platform companies such as Uber, Ola, Zomato, and Swiggy have been subject to litigation and regulatory scrutiny concerning the nature of their relationship with gig workers. The central issue in these disputes is whether the degree of control platforms exercise over workers exceeds what is typical of independent contracting arrangements and approaches the characteristics of an employer-employee relationship.

Indian courts and regulatory authorities have examined practices related to task allocation, account deactivation, incentive structures, and access to benefits, with particular attention to the role of algorithmic management and workers’ economic dependence on platform-based income. Judicial observations, including in matters taken up Suo-motu, indicate a growing willingness to consider the vulnerability of gig workers engaged through digital platforms, even where a formal employment relationship is expressly denied.

One particular concern is the practice of sudden account deactivation or denial of platform access, often carried out by automated systems. Such actions have given rise to legal challenges on ground of arbitrariness, lack of procedural fairness, and violation of principles of natural justice, especially in cases where the platform access constitutes the worker’s sole source of livelihood [xii]

In addition, platform companies face emerging risks relating to data governance and algorithmic accountability. Decisions concerning pricing, incentives, work allocation, and performance ratings involve extensive processing of workers’ personal and performance-related data. In the absence of sector-specific labour regulation addressing these issues, platforms are required to structure such practices in compliance with evolving data protection standards and transparency obligations, particularly where automated decision-making has a direct impact on workers’ livelihoods.

Different states may implement the Labour Codes in varying ways, particularly because platforms are required to contribute to gig worker welfare under Chapter IX[xiii].Companies operating across multiple states therefore face compliance obligations that differ from state to state. Where startups fail to anticipate these obligations at a time when government authorities are closely scrutinising gig business models, record-keeping practices, grievance mechanisms, and welfare contributions, they risk regulatory non-compliance.

This evolving landscape has shifted the focus away from isolated disputes towards systemic regulatory oversight, underscoring the need for proactive, structured legal planning at the operational level.

GIG Engagements Post Labour Codes Structuring Solutions

Companies can no longer rely solely on informal contractor arrangements. The engagement structures governing gig and platform workers now need to be statutorily aligned and properly documented.

(a) Contractual Structuring

To minimize the risk of workers being misclassified as independent contractors or employees, companies hiring gig workers need to transform their procurement practices such as: Categorising the workforce in accordance with the Codes (Sections 2(35) and 2(61))[xiv]

  • The acknowledgement of Chapter IX[xv] benefits, along with it, will surely lower the risk of auditing confusion.
  • Compensation and task assignment should be made clear and explicit. Having a clear delineation of wages will protect against claims of unreasonable deductions dictated by the algorithm.
  • Clearly stating the reasons for account deactivation precisely. Even if there are no obligatory notice periods, having termination criteria in place and documented helps counter “arbitrary” allegations.
  • Provisions like “Statutory Flexibility” should be included to allow seamless updates as state-specific welfare rules and contribution rates are notified.

The Role of a Fractional GC in GIG-Based Businesses

A Fractional GC is an external legal advisor who functions as an in-house counsel on a part-time or retainer basis. This allows companies to access continuous legal support without the cost of a full-time legal team.

For companies that heavily depend on gig workers, handling this change without the support of a full-time legal team would be difficult. In such cases, a Fractional GC can take on the role of continuous legal supervision. A Fractional GC may help in ensuring that engagement structures remain defined by the laws, at the same time, remain flexible enough to accommodate any changes. Proactive contract updates and compliance planning are the advantages companies gain from always being one step ahead of regulatory developments, rather than responding to them.  A Fractional GC may also help companies to draft operational policies on platform use, performance levels, and dispute resolution, balancing control and classification risk and engage directly with the authorities to addressing scrutiny.

Conclusion

India’s gig economy has moved out of the legal grey area after the new labor law regime has given a formal recognition to gig and platform workers. It is therefore imperative that businesses now adopt a structured, compliant engagement framework rather than rely on informal contractor models.

References:

[i] Economic Times, ‘Gig Workers’ Strike Revives Debate on 10-Minute Delivery’ (31 December 2025)
accessed 6 January 2026.
[ii] Indian School of Business, ‘Revitalising Worker’s Rights for the Gig Economy’
accessed 6 January 2026.
[iii] Times of India, ‘‘Gig worker safety row: Blinkit drops 10-minute delivery claim after Labour Ministry flags concerns’ (Times of India, 24 December 2025) accessed 23 January 2026
[iv] Naini Thaker and Samreen Wani, ‘Gig workers are the backbone of Indian cities but some problems remain’ (Forbes India, 23 September 2025) accessed 8 January 2026.
[v] Code on Social Security 2020 (India).
[vi] Code on Social Security 2020, s 2(35) (India).
[vii] Manupatra, ‘Workers’ Rights in the Gig Economy: Legal Framework and Challenges’ accessed 6 January 2026.
[viii] Supra Note 6.
[ix] NITI Aayog, India’s Booming Gig and Platform Economy: Perspectives and Recommendations on the Future of Work (NITI Aayog, June 2022) accessed 23 January 2026.
[x] Indian School of Business, ‘Revitalising Worker’s Rights for the Gig Economy’ accessed 6 January 2026.
[xi] Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd v State of Saurashtra AIR 1957 SC 264.
[xii] In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers (2020) 10 SCC 516, Supreme Court of India.
[xiii] Ibid.
[xiv] Ibid.
[xv] Ibid.

Gaurav Gupta is the Founder and Managing Partner at Bridge Counsels & Prerna Kumari is a 4th year Student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad and Intern at Bridge Counsels.