Karnataka’s Gig Worker Ordinance: ‘A step forward but many misses’

Bengaluru: Last week, Karnataka Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot gave his assent to the state’s Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Ordinance 2025, which is expected to pass in the upcoming Monsoon Session of the legislature in July.

While observers see it as a step in the right direction, in terms of labour rights and recognising this segment of workers, they assail it on the score of offering comprehensive protections aligned with the country's broader labour rights framework. 

Though the ordinance makes a mention of ‘income security’, it has missed out on one of the basics in labour rights - the right to minimum wage. While it has to be thought through differently because it would apply differently in this kind of work, the formulation committee should’ve connected with the statutory minimum wage act, experts pointed out. 

The ordinance has suggested having an exhaustive list of grounds for termination of contract drawn up, but failed to specify what it will the list consist of. “The ordinance does not provide any assurance of employment continuity or guarantee, which is a core concern in the context of precarious gig work,” said Munab Ali Beik, Head Compliance Advisory, Core Integra. 

There are also no provisions specifying working hour limitations, which is essential to prevent overwork and exploitation. 

Another blind spot is insurance coverage, with neither health insurance nor accident or life insurance, finding a mention in the ordinance. This, despite the inherently high-risk nature of many gig roles, such as delivery and transportation services.

But given that the ordinance talks of social security, it needs to be clarified, if what is being offered by the state government will be a duplication of what is already available on the central government’s e-Shram portal (intended to register and extend benefits to unorganised sector workers, including Gig workers) or if an unified approach will be taken.

Gig workers have access to ‘general and specific’ social security schemes based on contributions made by them and also the minimum number of transactions or gig work undertaken by them with any platform in a quarter as may be notified by the board, per the ordinance. However, here the social security benefits framework remains vaguely defined, also lacking details on pension contributions or provident fund. 

In case of dispute, the gig worker can complain to an internal committee. If not happy with the committee’s decision, they can approach the company’s board and that decision will be final. But the recourse in case of dispute with the board is not clear. 

“The board, becoming the first appellate, will have a final say. This should not negatively affect the worker who has a grievance against the board itself. Hence, it needs to be spelt out in the rules for that. Since it is a tripartite representation board, the rules will clarify that a board will have to set up a committee or a group. Otherwise, court is always an option,” highlighted Rakshita Swamy of Social Accountability Forum for Action and Research (SAFAR). 

Experts also spoke of algorithm transparency for the benefit of the worker as work allocation, payment and incentives is something that is largely determined by it. “A large portion of a gig workers’ earnings comes from incentives. Now, when a company wants to maximise profits, it will allow you to get your first few rides very quickly and then the algorithm might not let you get the remaining rides required to receive an incentive which will otherwise be clear if a part of the algorithm is shared,” Nikhil Dey, Founder and Member of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, National Campaign For Peoples Right to Information, pointed out. 

Few inconsistencies have also been spotted in the method of contribution calculation as well as the payment records system that’s been brought out by the government. Presently, the proposal is to integrate gig worker payment records with the Payment and Welfare Fee Verification System (PWFVS), a state government-managed platform.

“Given the sheer volume of micro transactions and dynamic invoicing in gig operations, mandating real time or large scale sharing of transactions may impose significant operational burdens and raise data privacy and commercial confidentiality concerns,” added Beik. 

The ordinance clearly requires more details to be fleshed out and clarified as their absence leave both gig workers and platform providers exposed to ambiguity and inconsistent enforcement, undermining the very objective of welfare and accountability for which the ordinance was brought in.