Govt May Relax Social Security Rules for Gig Workers: Legal Framework, Statutory Powers and Constitutional Context

Introduction

The Union Government’s indication that it may relax eligibility norms for gig workers under the Code on Social Security, 2020 marks a critical moment in India’s evolving labour law regime. As the gig economy expands rapidly—particularly through food delivery, e-commerce logistics and quick commerce platforms—the challenge before policymakers is to reconcile flexible work models with minimum social protection guarantees.

Recent statements by senior officials of the Labour Ministry confirm that the government is actively examining public suggestions on the draft Social Security (Gig and Platform Workers) Rules, including the controversial minimum working-day thresholds for accessing benefits such as health and accident insurance.

This article examines the statutory framework, constitutional provisions, and judicial principles relevant to this policy debate.


Background: Draft Rules Under the Social Security Code, 2020

The Code on Social Security, 2020, passed by Parliament in 2019–20, consolidates and replaces multiple labour laws governing provident fund, insurance, gratuity and welfare benefits. For the first time in Indian labour law history, the Code formally recognises gig workers and platform workers as a distinct category deserving statutory protection.

To operationalise this Code, the Union Government recently notified draft rules inviting public comments.

Current Eligibility Criteria in Draft Rules

Under the draft framework:

  • A platform worker must work for a minimum of 90 days on a single platform to become eligible for social security benefits.

  • If the worker operates across multiple platforms, the threshold increases to 120 days.

These thresholds have drawn sharp criticism from workers’ unions, who argue that gig work is inherently intermittent, fragmented and non-linear, making such cut-offs unrealistic.


Government’s Position: Possible Relaxation of Thresholds

A senior government official has clarified that:

  • The Labour Ministry will ensure no gig worker is excluded due to rigid eligibility norms.

  • The 90-day requirement may be reduced, if found necessary.

  • All public suggestions are currently under examination.

This position reflects an acknowledgement that the draft rules may not reflect real-world gig work patterns, especially in rapid-delivery platforms where workers often engage for short durations.


Role of the Labour Ministry and Policy Signals

Labour Minister Mansukh Mandaviya recently urged quick commerce platforms to avoid projecting 10-minute delivery as a standard benchmark, citing concerns about work pressure and safety for delivery partners.

This intervention signals a broader regulatory intent:

  • To curb exploitative performance expectations

  • To balance consumer convenience with worker welfare

  • To integrate occupational safety concerns into gig economy regulation


Workers’ Unions and Objections to Draft Rules

Incompatibility with Actual Work Patterns

Gig workers’ unions argue that:

  • Most delivery partners work sporadically rather than continuously.

  • Many workers switch platforms frequently due to incentive structures and algorithmic allocation of work.

  • As a result, a majority may fail to meet the 90/120-day threshold, rendering social security benefits largely illusory.

Unions have demanded a reduction of the eligibility threshold to 60 days.

Threat of Industrial Action

Citing poor wages and working conditions, workers’ groups called for a flash strike on New Year’s Eve, a peak demand period for delivery platforms. This reflects growing labour unrest within the gig economy.


Industry Data and Platform Perspective

A significant data point cited in this debate comes from Deepinder Goyal, founder of Eternal (owner of Zomato and Blinkit).

In a public statement, he noted that:

  • In 2025, the average delivery partner on Zomato worked only 38 days in the entire year.

  • Average working time was around seven hours per working day.

  • This reflects a “true gig-style participation”, rather than full-time employment.

He further argued that:

  • Demanding full-time employee benefits such as provident fund or guaranteed salaries does not align with the gig model’s design.

This data strengthens the unions’ argument that current draft thresholds may exclude most workers by default.


Statutory Framework: Code on Social Security, 2020

Section 2: Definitions

The Code defines:

  • Gig worker as a person who performs work outside the traditional employer–employee relationship.

  • Platform worker as a gig worker engaged through an online platform.

This statutory recognition is crucial, as it moves gig workers out of complete legal invisibility.


Section 114: Welfare Schemes for Gig and Platform Workers

Section 114 empowers the Union Government to:

  • Frame welfare schemes for gig and platform workers

  • Cover benefits such as:

    • Life and disability insurance

    • Health and maternity benefits

    • Old-age protection

Funding sources may include:

  • Contributions from aggregators

  • Government funding

  • Any other prescribed source

Importantly, the provision grants the executive wide discretion, allowing eligibility norms to be modified without amending the parent legislation.


Section 141: Social Security Fund

Under Section 141:

  • Contributions collected under Section 114 must be credited to the Social Security Fund

  • A separate account is to be maintained specifically for gig and platform workers

The draft rules clarify that aggregator contributions will form part of this dedicated fund.


Universal Account Number and Data-Sharing Obligations

The draft rules require aggregators to:

  • Share details of all engaged gig and platform workers on a Central Government portal

  • Facilitate generation of a Universal Account Number (UAN) for each worker

The UAN will be used to:

  • Track eligibility

  • Administer benefits

  • Enable portability across platforms

However, labour activists have flagged concerns regarding:

  • Calculation of aggregator contributions when workers switch platforms

  • Lack of clarity on uniformity of contribution rates across different kinds of platforms

  • Absence of guidance on contributions for current and past financial years


Constitutional Provisions Implicated

Article 21: Right to Life and Dignity

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Article 21 to include:

  • The right to live with dignity

  • The right to livelihood

  • Protection against exploitative working conditions

Denial of basic social security to gig workers, despite statutory recognition, may raise Article 21 concerns, particularly where workers face occupational risks without insurance coverage.


Articles 38 and 43: Directive Principles of State Policy

  • Article 38 obligates the State to promote social justice and reduce inequalities.

  • Article 43 directs the State to secure a living wage and decent standard of life for workers.

While non-justiciable, these principles strongly inform the interpretation of labour welfare statutes, including the Social Security Code.


Judicial Precedents and Legal Principles

Although there is no direct Supreme Court ruling yet on gig workers’ social security under the 2020 Code, certain principles are relevant:

Employee vs Independent Contractor Tests

In cases such as Hussainbhai v Alath Factory Thozhilali Union and Bangalore Water Supply v A. Rajappa, the Court emphasised:

  • Economic dependence

  • Degree of control

  • Substance over form in employment relationships

These principles may influence future litigation on whether certain gig workers deserve greater statutory protections, regardless of contractual labels.


Conclusion: Policy Choice at a Critical Juncture

The government’s willingness to reconsider the 90-day eligibility threshold reflects a pragmatic recognition of gig work realities. While the Social Security Code, 2020 represents a landmark shift in labour law, its success will depend on inclusive rule-making, not formalistic criteria that exclude the very workers it seeks to protect.

Relaxing eligibility norms, clarifying contribution mechanisms, and ensuring portability of benefits are essential if social security for gig workers is to be substantive rather than symbolic.

As India’s platform economy continues to expand, the choices made at this stage will shape the future of work, welfare and labour rights for millions.

Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

India vs Pressure: Why New Delhi Is Not Backing Down on Russian Oil Amid Global Scrutiny