Conference Agenda

Amidst employment crisis in India, platform-based work is emerging as a major source of employment. ILO (2024) citing Online Labour Index 2020 notes, India has the highest share of platform workers in the world, amongst top 15 countries (considering major online platforms). Indeed, surveys reveal that compared to traditional sectors, location-based platform workers receive better pay; although these may be higher returns for taking greater risks (completing pre-determined trips/deliveries during peak hours to obtain bonus). Nonetheless, studies reveal that they are stressed due to long hours, pressure to drive quickly, inability to take break/logout for the fear of slowdown in work offers and account deactivation. This adds to the risk of work-related injury and has major implications for occupational health and safety. Furthermore, most of them do not have social security coverage.

In this context, Indian government under Social Security Code 2020 proposed to formulate schemes to extend life and disability cover, accident insurance, health and maternity benefits, old age protection, among others – to platform workers. However, it notably missed crucial areas of concern, namely, PF, gratuity and paid sick leave. Given this broad framework, until now two sub-national governments – Rajasthan (largest state in the country) and Karnataka (a southern state) – formulated legislations for location-based platform workers.

In light of the prominent problems highlighted by location-based platform workers, we discuss them in some details covering: unfair ‘contracts of adhesion’ governing every aspect of work process; problem of non-transparent algorithm; opaque grievance redressal and dispute resolution procedure; non-recognition of platform workers as employees and associated denial of benefits, among others. After identifying the areas of concern, we then analyse the sub-national legislations/bills closely to understand – how they suggest to address the specific problems identified above. Next, we indicate potential areas where amendments can bring in improvements (breaking data monopolies of platforms; collective user right over community data by creating Public data infrastructure; using aggregate data in collective bargaining; ‘human-in-command’ approach to ensure fairness and end discrimination; access to ‘source code’ of algorithm; allowing class actions in dispute resolution; scrapping ‘third party clause’ in disputes; promoting social dialogue and collective bargaining). Finally, international regulatory developments are reviewed along with examining their impact – in order to, understand reasons behind successes and draw lessons from failures, so as to improve the life location-based platform workers.

TThe economic revolution ushered in across the globe because of factors like rising urbanization and extensive use of smartphones and related technologies, which have given rise to a new form of work called gig labor. With the youngest population in the world, and gig workers sized up to 7.7 million in 2021-22, India is at the forefront of this structural change.

However, the existing legal framework in India (federal and provincial) does not address the problems and rights of those who are employed outside of traditional employer-employee relationships. Legal reforms enacted in the recent past have not been implemented owing to resistance from various quarters, rising business costs, inconsistent application to various sectors, etc. There is, thus, a need to examine the legal mechanisms and economic, social, and cultural barriers in the enactment and implementation of laws for protecting the basic rights of millions of people in the platform-based gig economy.

Research Questions

1. To what extent do existing labor codes protect the basic rights of platform-based gig workers?

2. What are the legal, institutional, social, and cultural challenges in implementing labor reforms in India relating to platform-based gig workers to ensure minimum wages, social security benefits, and decent work conditions?

3. How to ensure coordination among the Union and States while providing efficacious rights to platform-based gig workers, avoiding overlap of policy and law, given the fact that employment, social security, and social insurance are concurrent subjects under the Constitution of India?

Contribution

The research shall contribute to providing a strong basis for a policy framework regarding the entitlements of the platform-based gig workers.

Methodology

The study will use a combination of doctrinal and empirical methods of research. In-depth interviews shall be conducted using a structured interview schedule to collect quantitative and qualitative data from workers and employers to gain insight into the problems, challenges, and legal impediments in the enactment and implementation of basic rights of the platform-based gig workers.

Likely Findings

1. Keeping in view the high magnitude of persons employed in this sector, there is a strong need for regulating gig work in India.

2. There are systemic and structural challenges in implementing the Social Security Code, 2020, and the state enactments regarding platform-based gig workers.

3. There is a need for coordination and cooperation among the Union and States, keeping in view potential overlap between Union and State laws and policies regarding platform-based gig workers.

Globally, the growing prominence and control by major platforms has raised concerns. First, there is a platform dependency creating a power imbalance with “data colonialism” (Couldry & Mejias, 2019) and “limited liability” (Gillespie, 2010). Second, the problem of unequal value creation (Mazzucato, 2018). And third, there is an emerging global underclass where platforms thrive on a precarious and often invisible workforce that performs low-skilled gig and platform work (Graham & Woodcock, 2018), and even high-skilled piecework, or “ghost work” (Gray & Suri, 2019) usually earning less than the legal minimum wage without any social security benefits (ILO, 2021). However, as part of a broader global counter-movement, India, along with several countries in the Global South, is challenging the dominance of major platforms, emerging as competitors and reclaiming significant portions of their respective digital economies.

In Bengaluru, the so-called Silicon Valley of India, Mobi (pseudonym), a local ride-hailing mobility app has introduced an alternative commercial model built on SaaS protocol where (1) The initial demand for such an app came from the community of union drivers as a response against the unfair labour practices of platform giants like Uber and Ola; (2) Mobi charges zero commission unlike its competitors that charge commission of 20-30% for each ride from the app-based drivers; (3) Mobi operates on the “open” principle i.e. open-source code, open-data policy, OpenStreetMaps (OSM) and Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC), a Government of India initiative that seeks to decentralise platform monopolies and provide equitable market access to small and local players.

I conducted technography (tech + ethnography) in Mobi from July 2023 to March 2024 that involved participant observation, and interviews across the tech company including, the founder, CEO, CFO and software developers. Interviews were also conducted with 30+ app-based drivers along with three union leaders, government officials and civil society members ensuring perspectives across the stakeholders.

This article aims to explore “Protocol as policy” adopted in response to global platform giants amidst diverse social settings and labour practices to promote more equitable livelihood outcomes. This article will discuss the modalities of this institutional innovation, policy strategies and way forward. The research demonstrates new synergies in the platform ecosystem led by public-private partnership challenging the big players in the market. It is part of the wider movement to achieve digital sovereignty, and retain greater control over data, economy, and technological infrastructure.

Introduction: We study the procedural justice perception of Indian on-demand platform workers in a context where—the asymmetries of information and power prevail, platform worker identities oscillate between being a ‘micro-entrepreneur’ and/or ‘worker’, algorithmic management styles prevent face-to-face interactions, and workers work in a silo.

Research Questions: What is procedural Justice at work for the on-demand platform workers? How are such procedural justice perceptions formed for on-demand platform workers?

Methodology: Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is employed to understand on-demand platform workers’ expectations, lived experiences, and procedural justice at work perceptions. 41 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted across three distinct industries- Cab Driving, Food delivery and Hyperlocal grocery delivery. The data was triangulated from multiple sources, including- newspaper articles, work agreements (contracts), social media posts from Facebook groups, and photos from the field.

Findings and Contribution: The identities of both a worker and an entrepreneur coexist simultaneously within an on-demand platform worker, with each contributing to the perceptions of justice. We find that freedom of voice and freedom of choice emerges as two crucial procedural justice elements, i.e., the ability to voice opinions and choose one’s desired outcomes alongside the procedures facilitating the achievement of such outcomes. We extend our theorizing by borrowing arguments from Greenberg and Folger (1983) and the work done in social justice research by Sen (2009), Carter (1995), and Rawls (1971) and integrate it with the organizational justice literature.

The workers work in silos, and their voices are often silenced due to the abundant supply of labour and the severe consequences of collectivizing. Replaceability came as one of the strongest themes suppressing voice. They find solidarity and often voice (sometimes anonymously) through social-media platforms. Findings reveal how the freedom to choose ‘outcomes’ and the ‘means’ of achieving such outcomes stem from the micro-entrepreneurial identity assumed by the worker. Similar to entrepreneurs, these workers seek to select and optimize their desired outcomes, determining the ways to achieve those goals. Recognizing the dynamic nature of contemporary work, we argue that this entrepreneurial identity may extend beyond platform work, establishing "freedom of choice" as a pivotal construct in the perception of procedural justice across various forms of employment. We thus find that freedom of voice and choice, along with proper explanations of decisions, accuracy of procedures, correctability mechanisms, consistent application of rules, representativeness and ethicality in practices, are important elements in the perceptions of procedural justice amongst workers.

Introduction

India's consolidation of 29 labor laws into four Labor Codes represents a watershed moment in addressing platform work regulation, particularly through the Code on Social Security 2020's unprecedented recognition of gig workers. In a global context where jurisdictions like the UK and Germany have established legal precedents for gig workers' rights, India's legislative transformation raises critical questions about implementation in the world's third-largest gig economy, employing over 7.7 million workers and projected to reach 23.5 million by 2029-30.

Research Questions:

1. How do India's new Labor Codes address the fundamental tensions between platform business models and worker protections?

2. What systemic barriers impede the effective implementation of these regulatory provisions, particularly regarding worker classification and social security coverage?

Methodology

The study employs a comprehensive policy analysis framework combining systematic legal analysis of all four Labor Codes, with particular focus on the Social Security Code 2020 and its implementing regulations. Our analysis examines recent legislative developments including the Rajasthan Platform-based Gig Workers Bill 2023 and evaluates landmark cases such as Blinkit workers' strikes and IFAT litigation to understand emerging jurisprudence on worker classification. We conduct comparative analysis of regulatory approaches and successful implementation models from Global South economies (Thailand, Malaysia) alongside developed jurisdictions (UK, Germany). Implementation gaps are assessed through analysis of court decisions, government documents, and stakeholder consultations, complemented by evaluation of registration mechanisms, social security frameworks, and collective bargaining provisions across digital platform ecosystems. Case studies of worker collective actions and platform responses provide empirical grounding for understanding regulatory effectiveness and compliance challenges in the Indian context.

Contribution to Literature

This research advances platform work regulation scholarship by providing a systematic analysis of implementation challenges in developing economy contexts. It develops an analytical framework for assessing regulatory effectiveness that considers the unique constraints of emerging economies, contributing to both theoretical understanding and practical policy development.

Findings

Our analysis reveals four critical implementation challenges: (1) ambiguous worker classification creating overlapping categories between unorganized, gig, and platform workers; (2) inadequate funding mechanisms and benefit delivery systems; (3) limited registration and documentation frameworks for informal workers; and (4) absence of collective bargaining rights and union formation provisions. These findings highlight the need for statutory affirmation of gig workers' rights beyond social security benefits and development of clear implementation frameworks tailored to developing economy contexts.