1. Introduction

1.1 The Changing Nature of Work in India

The twenty-first century has reshaped the nature of employment in India more dramatically than any earlier industrial or technological shift. The traditional picture of a permanent, full-time job with a clear employer–employee relationship is giving way to a fluid labour market dominated by task-based, freelance, and digital platform-mediated work. From food-delivery riders and cab drivers to online tutors, designers, and software testers, millions of Indians now earn livelihoods through digital applications that match workers with consumers in real time. This transformation has been driven by a confluence of factors—expansion of internet penetration, affordability of smartphones, demographic youth bulge, and a start-up ecosystem eager to exploit flexible labour pools to stay competitive.

While this shift has expanded economic opportunities, it has simultaneously undermined the protective framework built over decades for formal employees. Conventional labour laws presupposed a stable employer responsible for wages, social-security contributions, and working conditions. Gig and platform work, by contrast, diffuses accountability among multiple actors—the platform, the customer, and the worker—none of whom easily fit into the binary categories of “employer” and “employee.” Consequently, an expanding share of India’s workforce remains outside social-security coverage. The International Labour Organization and domestic think-tanks estimate that India may already have between seven and ten million platform-based workers, projected to reach nearly twenty million by 2030 if current growth trends continue.

This “new economy” work has sparked both optimism and anxiety. On one hand, it offers flexibility, supplemental income, and entrepreneurial freedom. On the other, it exposes workers to income volatility, absence of paid leave, lack of health or accident insurance, and uncertain retirement prospects. The COVID-19 pandemic starkly illuminated these vulnerabilities: thousands of delivery riders and drivers faced loss of income overnight, with no safety nets to rely upon. The traditional dichotomy of organised versus unorganised labour thus proved insufficient to capture the complex realities of digital work. Recognising this, policymakers began exploring how India’s legal and welfare architecture could adapt to encompass these emerging forms of labour without stifling innovation or investment.

The Social Security Code, 2020 emerges from this context as a landmark attempt to modernise India’s social-protection regime. For the first time in Indian legislative history, the Code explicitly defines “gig worker” and “platform worker” as distinct categories and provides the foundation for extending to them benefits such as health insurance, life and disability cover, and old-age protection. By integrating these workers into a broader social-security framework, the government signalled a paradigm shift—from protection limited to factory or office employees toward a vision of universal and inclusive social security.

The change, however, is not merely terminological; it reflects a rethinking of the social contract between labour, capital, and the state. It acknowledges that in a digital economy, the welfare of workers cannot depend solely on a traditional employer but must instead rely on a multi-stakeholder model involving governments, aggregators, and workers themselves. Understanding this evolution is essential to appreciate both the promise and the limitations of the Social Security Code, 2020.

1.2 Why Gig and Platform Work Needs Legal Protection

The rationale for legal intervention in the gig economy arises from the glaring asymmetry of power between platforms and individual workers. Gig workers are technically “independent contractors,” yet their autonomy is constrained by algorithmic management: rating systems, performance metrics, and dynamic pricing mechanisms effectively control their work conditions. They shoulder business risks without sharing in ownership or profits. The absence of legal recognition historically meant they could neither unionise effectively nor access statutory benefits such as provident fund, employee-state insurance, or maternity leave.

In this context, legal protection serves three interlinked purposes. The first is economic security. Without health cover or pension support, workers face catastrophic risks that can wipe out their modest earnings. The second is social justice—ensuring that those who sustain India’s thriving digital-service economy are not left behind in its prosperity. The third is labour-market stability. When large segments of the workforce remain unprotected, consumption, productivity, and public health suffer, ultimately affecting the broader economy.

The gig sector’s informality also creates unfair competition between compliant and non-compliant businesses. Platforms that avoid social-security obligations can undercut costs, pushing others toward a race to the bottom. A legal framework that levels this playing field is therefore not merely a welfare measure but a structural economic necessity. Internationally, several jurisdictions—from the EU to California—have grappled with this dilemma, oscillating between classifying gig workers as employees, contractors, or a hybrid category. India’s Code adopts a middle path: instead of reclassifying workers, it confers social-security entitlements through a special category, thereby preserving flexibility while addressing vulnerability.

Moreover, legal recognition amplifies the collective voice of workers. When categories are defined in law, data can be gathered, schemes can be designed, and rights can be enforced. For women workers, who often constitute a substantial portion of part-time or home-based gig labour, formalisation opens access to maternity benefits and skill-development programs. It also aligns with India’s constitutional directives to secure the right to work, a living wage, and social assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, or disablement (Articles 41–43).

Finally, legal protection is critical for sustainability of the platform economy itself. Consumers increasingly value ethical business practices; investors consider social-governance compliance in funding decisions. A transparent legal environment ensures predictability and reduces litigation risk for aggregators. Thus, the Social Security Code, 2020 is not an anti-business measure but a step toward formalising and stabilising a sector that has become central to India’s urban and semi-urban livelihoods.

By embedding gig and platform labour within the social-security discourse, the Code acknowledges that technological innovation must coexist with human welfare. It transforms what was previously seen as “temporary” or “supplementary” work into a legitimate component of the national employment framework, deserving of the same dignity and protection historically accorded to industrial labour.

1.3 Evolution of Labour Codes in India

India’s labour-law landscape has long been characterised by multiplicity and complexity. Before the 2020 reforms, more than forty central laws and over a hundred state-level legislations governed various aspects of employment—from wages and industrial disputes to provident funds and maternity benefits. This labyrinthine system often resulted in overlapping jurisdictions, inconsistent definitions, and compliance burdens that discouraged formal hiring. Workers in the informal sector, conversely, remained largely outside the ambit of these laws.

Recognising the need for consolidation, the Second National Commission on Labour (2002) recommended rationalising this fragmented framework into a few comprehensive codes. Nearly two decades later, Parliament enacted four major labour codes: the Code on Wages (2019), the Code on Industrial Relations (2020), the Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (2020), and the Code on Social Security (2020). Together, they aim to simplify compliance, enhance coverage, and modernise definitions in line with contemporary work realities.

The Social Security Code, 2020 subsumed nine earlier statutes, including the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (1952), Employees’ State Insurance Act (1948), Maternity Benefit Act (1961), Payment of Gratuity Act (1972), and Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act (2008). By bringing these under a single umbrella, the Code seeks uniformity in administration and allows for integration of digital systems such as Aadhaar-based registration and direct-benefit transfers.

A significant conceptual evolution within this code is the move toward universalisation. Earlier, social security was largely confined to employees in establishments above certain thresholds. The Code expands the horizon to cover unorganised, gig, and platform workers—reflecting a paradigm shift from employer-centric welfare to citizen-centric social protection. It also institutionalises tripartite boards at national and state levels to oversee scheme design and implementation, ensuring representation of workers, employers, and governments.

This evolution did not occur in isolation. It was shaped by global debates on the future of work, recommendations of the International Labour Conference, and domestic campaigns by worker collectives and civil-society groups. The result is a legal framework that attempts to reconcile India’s twin imperatives: fostering ease of doing business and guaranteeing the welfare of its increasingly diverse labour force.

2. Understanding the Social Security Code, 2020

2.1 Background and Objectives

The Social Security Code, 2020 was enacted with the central goal of creating an inclusive and simplified social-protection system adaptable to India’s evolving labour market. It responds to two intertwined challenges: fragmentation of previous laws and exclusion of informal workers. The government’s stated objectives include ensuring universal social security, streamlining multiple legislations into a coherent structure, and leveraging technology for efficient delivery.

The Code reflects India’s constitutional commitment under the Directive Principles of State Policy to secure the right to social security for all citizens. It also aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 1.3, which calls for implementing nationally appropriate social-protection systems for all. At a practical level, the Code intends to eliminate redundancy in registration and compliance procedures, replacing them with unified online mechanisms accessible to both employers and workers.

One of the most progressive elements is its explicit mention of gig and platform workers. This recognition is not symbolic; it lays the groundwork for developing specific welfare schemes that can be financed through contributions from governments and aggregators. The underlying philosophy is that social protection is a collective responsibility in which every beneficiary of the digital economy—state, platform, and consumer—must participate.

By enabling the creation of a Social Security Fund for unorganised and gig workers, the Code introduces flexibility in designing schemes tailored to diverse needs. For instance, accident insurance for delivery riders may differ from pension schemes for digital freelancers. The Code’s modular approach allows policy instruments to evolve as new forms of work emerge.

Furthermore, the Code aims to reduce litigation by clarifying definitions and codifying powers of inspection, enforcement, and adjudication within a unified framework. It consolidates benefits such as provident fund, state insurance, gratuity, and maternity protection under a single legislative umbrella, simplifying both administration and worker understanding. In essence, it represents a structural reform meant to extend the promise of security from factory gates to digital platforms.

2.2 Consolidation of Labour Laws under the Code

Prior to 2020, India’s social-security regime resembled a patchwork quilt. Different statutes governed specific contingencies—health insurance through the ESI Act, retirement benefits through the EPF Act, and maternity protection through the Maternity Benefit Act. Each had distinct definitions of “employee,” “establishment,” and “wages,” creating compliance confusion and enforcement gaps. The Social Security Code consolidated nine major laws to establish uniform terminology and institutional mechanisms.

This consolidation serves multiple purposes. It improves administrative efficiency by reducing duplication of authorities. It promotes portability of benefits, enabling workers who change jobs or migrate across states to retain coverage. It also facilitates digital integration: a single registration number can link a worker’s social-security entitlements across schemes, eliminating the need for multiple enrolments.

However, consolidation is not merely an administrative exercise; it embodies a shift toward policy coherence. Earlier schemes operated in silos, often overlapping or leaving gaps. By bringing them together, the Code allows holistic planning—ensuring that contributions and benefits across various schemes are harmonised. For gig and platform workers, this unified structure opens the possibility of accessing multiple protections through a single digital interface, reducing transaction costs and bureaucratic friction.

Yet the success of consolidation depends on implementation. The challenge lies in aligning legacy institutions such as the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation with new categories of workers who lack fixed employers or workplaces. The Code empowers the central government to frame distinct schemes for different worker groups, thus providing legal elasticity to accommodate future labour-market innovations.

2.3 Scope and Coverage

The scope and coverage of the Social Security Code, 2020 extend far beyond the boundaries of any previous social-protection law in India. Earlier enactments were restricted by wage ceilings, establishment size, or industry type; the Code attempts to universalise coverage by treating social security as a right accruing to every worker, regardless of employment arrangement. It classifies the workforce into three broad groups—organised, unorganised, and gig/platform workers—each entitled to one or more schemes formulated by the Central or State Governments.

For the organised sector, the Code continues mandatory schemes such as Employees’ Provident Fund, Employees’ State Insurance, gratuity, and maternity benefit. For the unorganised sector, which employs more than 80 percent of India’s workforce, the Code empowers governments to notify suitable welfare programmes—ranging from life-disability cover to housing and education support. What truly distinguishes this law, however, is the formal inclusion of gig and platform workers within the statutory vocabulary of labour welfare.

The Code’s coverage philosophy rests on two ideas: inclusivity and flexibility. Inclusivity ensures that workers not bound by long-term contracts—drivers, delivery agents, digital freelancers—can still enjoy a measure of protection. Flexibility allows schemes to evolve with technology and business models. Instead of prescribing one uniform plan, the Code permits governments to design targeted programmes according to occupational risks or income profiles. For instance, delivery-app workers could receive accident insurance funded partly by aggregator contributions, whereas online content creators might be offered voluntary pension enrolment linked to their digital-payment accounts.

Another important dimension of scope lies in inter-state portability. The Code envisions national-level registration so that a worker who relocates from Delhi to Bengaluru remains entitled to the same benefits. This is crucial because platform labour is geographically fluid; drivers or couriers often migrate seasonally. The Aadhaar-linked registration mechanism ensures continuity and authenticity of data, thereby reducing duplication or fraud.

Nevertheless, coverage on paper does not automatically translate into tangible protection. Implementation requires coordination between central and state authorities, digital infrastructure for beneficiary tracking, and effective outreach to workers who may lack awareness or internet literacy. The Code’s wide scope is both its greatest strength and its central challenge: it creates the legal space for universal protection but depends on meticulous policy execution to fill that space with real schemes, budgets, and accountability structures.

2.4 Salient Features Relevant to the Workforce

Among the Code’s salient features, several directly affect the day-to-day realities of workers. The definition of “employee” has been broadened to include persons employed through contractors, while new definitions of “gig worker,” “platform worker,” and “unorganised worker” explicitly recognise non-traditional labour forms. This definitional clarity is essential for policymaking because without legal identity, no welfare scheme can assign benefits or obligations.

Another key feature is the creation of Social-Security Organisations, replacing multiple boards with unified bodies responsible for provident fund, insurance, and unorganised-worker welfare. The Code also provides for National and State Social Security Boards, comprising representatives of government, employers, and workers to design and review schemes—thereby embedding tripartite governance in the system.

Digitisation is at the heart of these reforms. The Code mandates Aadhaar-based registration and electronic record-keeping. This allows portability, real-time verification, and direct benefit transfers into workers’ bank accounts, reducing leakage and administrative delay. It also integrates different welfare databases—EPFO, ESIC, and unorganised-worker portals—into a single ecosystem.

For gig and platform workers specifically, the Code allows framing of special schemes related to life, accident, health, and old-age benefits. It directs every aggregator—food-delivery, e-commerce, ride-sharing, logistics—to contribute a notified percentage of annual turnover to a central fund. Workers can self-register through a web portal or mobile app to avail benefits once schemes are notified.

The Code also envisages graded enforcement mechanisms. Penalties for non-compliance are rationalised, and inspectors are replaced with “Inspector-cum-Facilitators,” expected to guide establishments toward compliance rather than merely penalise. Dispute-resolution authorities are streamlined to ensure speedy adjudication. For workers, these measures promise easier access to benefits; for employers, they promise predictability and reduced litigation.

Finally, the Code emphasises integration over fragmentation—a single legal structure that accommodates multiple contingencies: sickness, maternity, injury, disability, or old age. For the workforce, this means fewer administrative hurdles and potentially greater continuity of social-security coverage throughout a person’s working life, even as they shift between formal jobs and gig assignments.

3. Legal Recognition of Gig and Platform Workers

3.1 Defining “Gig Worker” under the Code

The Code on Social Security, 2020 defines a gig worker as “a person who performs work or participates in a work arrangement and earns from such activities outside of a traditional employer-employee relationship.” This deceptively simple definition is revolutionary in Indian labour law. For decades, legal rights hinged on proving an employment relationship—control, supervision, and payment of wages by an identifiable employer. Gig work defies those parameters: the worker logs in to a digital platform, accepts tasks algorithmically assigned, and is paid per delivery or project. The Code sidesteps the contentious employment test by creating a new legal identity that does not depend on employer control but still entitles the individual to welfare.

This recognition carries profound implications. It acknowledges gig work as a legitimate economic activity, not merely informal hustle. It also ensures visibility in national statistics, enabling evidence-based policymaking. From the perspective of social justice, the definition affirms that the right to social security stems from one’s contribution to the economy, not from one’s contractual status.

Yet the wording leaves scope for interpretation. Questions remain about boundary cases—does a part-time tutor on an education app qualify, or only those providing on-demand physical services? The Code empowers governments to clarify such details through notifications. This flexibility is useful because the digital economy evolves faster than legislation. What matters is that the conceptual door is open: anyone earning outside a regular employment relationship through mediated digital or offline tasks can be brought within the social-security net.

For policymakers, defining gig workers separately also enables targeted scheme design. Their risk profile—accidents, income volatility, lack of health coverage—differs from that of factory workers. By identifying them legally, the Code creates the administrative foundation for customised interventions such as micro-insurance, emergency funds, or contributory pensions adapted to fluctuating incomes.

In essence, the legal definition transforms gig labour from an invisible grey-zone activity into a recognised form of work deserving dignity and protection.

3.2 Defining “Platform Worker” under the Code

Closely allied but distinct is the concept of the platform worker, defined as “a person engaged in or undertaking platform work.” The Code further clarifies that “platform work” means a work arrangement outside a traditional employment relationship in which individuals or organisations use an online platform to access other organisations or individuals for specific services or problem-solving. This includes ride-sharing, food-delivery, logistics, home-service apps, and a range of digital marketplaces.

By articulating this definition, the Code captures the digital mediation that differentiates platform work from other forms of casual labour. A gig worker may find assignments through personal networks or contractors; a platform worker interfaces primarily through an app or website governed by algorithms. Recognising this distinction matters because digital intermediation introduces new challenges—data asymmetry, algorithmic bias, rating dependence, and opaque pricing mechanisms—that can directly affect worker welfare.

Legal recognition of platform work has symbolic and material significance. Symbolically, it brings India in line with global policy discourse acknowledging the “platformisation” of labour. Materially, it subjects aggregators to defined obligations: they must contribute to a social-security fund and furnish data on registered workers. This shifts responsibility from individual workers, who previously bore all risks, to the corporate entities profiting from their labour.

However, the Code deliberately avoids classifying platform workers as “employees,” thereby retaining flexibility for businesses. Instead of transforming them into salaried staff, it imposes a limited duty of contribution—a compromise intended to preserve innovation while addressing exploitation. This hybrid approach recognises that platform work cannot be forced into century-old legal molds yet cannot remain entirely unregulated.

Ultimately, by defining both gig and platform workers, the Code establishes a taxonomy of modern labour. These definitions will anchor future jurisprudence, welfare design, and data collection, shaping how India manages the social consequences of digital capitalism.

3.3 Difference between Gig, Platform, and Unorganised Workers

While the three categories overlap, the Code draws functional distinctions. Unorganised workers are those who work in the informal economy—self-employed, home-based, or employed in establishments with fewer than ten workers. Their engagement is typically offline, and many are in traditional trades such as construction, domestic work, or agriculture. Gig workers, as defined, operate outside regular employment, often performing task-based jobs; they may or may not rely on a digital intermediary. Platform workers form a sub-set of gig workers whose work is specifically mediated by online platforms.

The distinctions matter for policy targeting. Unorganised-sector schemes—like health insurance under Ayushman Bharat or pension under PM-Shram Yogi Maan-Dhan—can serve as foundational layers, while platform-specific funds add supplementary protection. For example, a driver on an app may simultaneously qualify as an unorganised worker for state welfare and as a platform worker for aggregator-funded insurance.

Conceptually, these categories mark the continuum from informality to digital intermediation. The unorganised sector represents traditional informality; gig work represents task-based informality; platform work represents algorithmic informality. Each stage demands differentiated regulatory strategies. Recognising these shades prevents one-size-fits-all policies that could either burden start-ups or neglect vulnerable workers.

Furthermore, categorisation facilitates statistical mapping. The government can measure how many workers transition from unorganised to gig to platform work, assess income volatility, and design portability mechanisms. It also aids grievance redressal: if a dispute arises over delayed payments on a digital platform, authorities can invoke provisions specific to platform work instead of general unorganised-labour laws.

Thus, the tri-part classification serves not to fragment the workforce but to illuminate the diverse realities of modern labour, allowing tailored protection strategies across India’s heterogeneous employment landscape.

3.4 Importance of Formal Recognition

Formal recognition under law carries consequences far beyond semantics. It is the gateway to rights, entitlements, and visibility. Prior to 2020, gig and platform workers were absent from official datasets; welfare planning could not even estimate their numbers. The Code corrects this invisibility. Once registered, these workers become part of national labour statistics, enabling evidence-based budgeting and evaluation.

Recognition also legitimises their claim to state protection. Without it, welfare schemes remain discretionary or philanthropic. With it, social security becomes a matter of legal right enforceable through administrative and judicial channels. Workers can demand benefits rather than plead for them.

From a socio-economic perspective, formalisation enhances access to credit and services. A verified digital identity as a registered worker can help individuals obtain loans, insurance, or housing because it demonstrates occupational stability. For women and marginalised communities, it reduces stigma associated with informal work and opens pathways to skill training.

For the government, recognition enables targeted delivery through digital platforms like the e-Shram portal. It reduces duplication, curbs leakages, and aligns with the larger Digital India vision. For aggregators, it provides clarity: instead of facing ad-hoc judicial rulings about worker status, they operate within defined parameters of contribution and reporting.

Most importantly, recognition redefines the moral landscape of work. It asserts that dignity and protection do not depend on factory gates or office walls; they belong equally to those navigating the urban streets on two-wheelers delivering food or code. In doing so, the Social Security Code bridges the gap between India’s industrial past and its digital future.

4. Social-Security Provisions for Gig and Platform Workers

4.1 Key Welfare and Social-Security Schemes

The Code authorises the Central Government to frame and notify specific welfare schemes for gig and platform workers covering matters such as life-disability insurance, health, maternity, old-age protection, education, and skill development. These schemes may be financed by any combination of contributions from the central or state governments, aggregators, and beneficiaries.

While detailed schemes are yet to be fully operationalised, the conceptual architecture is significant. It moves beyond employer-linked benefits to a multi-stakeholder funding model. For instance, a national accident-insurance scheme could draw 1–2 percent of an aggregator’s annual turnover, supplemented by government matching grants, with optional worker co-payments for enhanced coverage. The benefits could be delivered directly through Aadhaar-linked bank accounts, triggered automatically upon incident reporting via digital platforms.

This modular design allows schemes to reflect the heterogeneity of platform work. High-risk occupations like delivery or ride-sharing might prioritise accident cover; digital freelancers might prefer pension or skill-upgradation programmes. The Code also contemplates the possibility of voluntary enrolment, acknowledging that not all gig workers have continuous earnings to sustain mandatory contributions.

Integration with existing national programmes is another cornerstone. The Code allows convergence with initiatives such as the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana or Ayushman Bharat, ensuring that gig workers are not left in isolated schemes but connected to mainstream welfare architecture.

Ultimately, these provisions aim to translate the constitutional promise of social security into a tangible network of safety nets, flexible enough to adapt to the diversity and fluidity of modern employment.

4.2 Life and Disability Cover

Life and disability insurance constitute the foundational layer of protection for workers exposed to physical risk. The pandemic and increasing road accidents among delivery riders have underscored the urgency of such coverage. Under the Code, both Central and State Governments can design schemes ensuring compensation in the event of death or disability arising out of and in the course of work. Aggregators’ contributions to the social-security fund are expected to finance a significant portion of these schemes.

A well-implemented life-disability programme can prevent families from slipping into poverty after workplace accidents. For instance, a policy could guarantee ₹ 4–10 lakh in case of death and proportionate benefits for partial disability, along with hospitalisation reimbursement. The challenge lies in ensuring timely claims processing and avoiding bureaucratic hurdles. Digital verification through platform data—time-stamped ride or delivery logs—can help establish work-relatedness of accidents, thus simplifying adjudication.

From a policy standpoint, such coverage also benefits platforms by demonstrating corporate responsibility and enhancing brand trust. Several large aggregators have already introduced voluntary insurance schemes; the Code institutionalises and standardises these efforts, ensuring that protection is not left to corporate discretion.

Effective implementation will require clear protocols on premium sharing, claim filing, and grievance redressal, supported by integration between insurance companies, government portals, and platform APIs. If executed well, life-disability cover could become the most visible success story of the Social-Security-Code reforms.

4.3 Health and Maternity Benefits

Health and maternity benefits form the second critical pillar of social security. Gig and platform workers, often working long hours in polluted or unsafe environments, face heightened health risks but lack employer-sponsored insurance. The Code empowers governments to extend health schemes either independently or in collaboration with the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. Coverage could include outpatient care, hospitalisation, maternity assistance, and preventive check-ups.

For women workers, maternity protection is particularly vital. The Code retains existing provisions under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and allows extension to unorganised, gig, or platform workers through notified schemes. Financial support during pregnancy, along with healthcare access, can significantly improve maternal and child health outcomes. Implementation may leverage existing programmes like Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana or state-level cash-transfer schemes, integrated through the e-Shram database.

Technologically, tele-medicine and digital-health records can bridge service gaps for mobile workers. Partnerships with health-tech start-ups could provide on-demand doctor consultations or emergency assistance through apps, funded from the social-security pool.

The broader rationale is preventive as much as curative. Healthy workers are productive workers; investing in health coverage reduces absenteeism, turnover, and long-term public-health expenditure. By institutionalising such benefits, the Code marks a step toward universal health protection consistent with India’s National Health Policy 2017.

4.4 Old-Age Protection and Pension

Longevity without financial security is a looming concern for informal and gig workers who rarely contribute to pension schemes. The Code addresses this through enabling provisions for old-age protection, potentially via contributory or subsidised pension programmes. Workers can enrol voluntarily, with contributions collected through digital payment gateways linked to their unique registration numbers.

Schemes such as the Atal Pension Yojana or PM-Shram Yogi Maan-Dhan can be expanded to include gig and platform workers, ensuring continuity even with irregular income. Governments may match a portion of contributions or provide default coverage up to a basic threshold. The idea is to build micro-savings habits that accumulate into sustainable retirement support.

For aggregators, participation in such schemes also enhances worker loyalty and reduces turnover. For the state, it mitigates future fiscal pressure from elderly-poverty programmes. The key challenge will be financial literacy—educating young, transient workers about the value of long-term savings. Mobile-based nudges, gamified saving tools, and automatic deduction options can make participation seamless.

Old-age protection thus transforms precarious gig work into a pathway toward long-term financial resilience, fulfilling the constitutional vision of a welfare state that protects citizens from destitution in later life.

4.5 Education and Skill-Development Support

Beyond immediate welfare, the Code envisages schemes promoting education and skill development. This acknowledges that true social security lies not only in compensating risk but in enhancing employability. Gig and platform workers often operate in low-skill segments; access to continuous learning can help

them upgrade to higher-paying roles or entrepreneurial ventures.

Governments can collaborate with platforms, vocational institutes, and ed-tech firms to offer certified training modules—defensive driving, financial literacy, digital marketing, coding, or customer service—funded from the social-security corpus. Completion of such courses could be linked to incremental benefits, creating incentives for participation.

For the families of workers, educational scholarships for children can break intergenerational cycles of vulnerability. Linking such support to school attendance or performance metrics ensures accountability.

In the long run, investment in education and skills builds a more adaptive labour force capable of navigating technological disruption. It aligns social security with the vision of human-capital development, turning welfare from a reactive safety net into a proactive empowerment mechanism.

5. Funding Mechanisms and Contributions

5.1 Central and State Government Responsibilities

Financing social security for gig and platform workers requires cooperative federalism. The Code distributes responsibility between the Central and State Governments. The Centre formulates overarching schemes, sets contribution ceilings, and manages the national database, while States implement schemes locally and may introduce additional benefits.

Budgetary allocations are to be made annually under respective ministries. The Code allows both levels of government to contribute either as fixed grants or as matching shares to aggregator and worker contributions. In practice, central funding will likely dominate initial phases to ensure viability until contribution flows stabilise.

The dual structure offers flexibility: states can tailor benefits to local cost-of-living variations while adhering to national minimum standards. Effective fiscal coordination—through intergovernmental committees and transparent reporting—is essential to prevent overlap or neglect.

By assuming fiscal responsibility, the state acknowledges that social security is a public good, not a private charity, and that the digital economy’s benefits must be shared through redistributive mechanisms.

5.2 Role of Aggregators and Digital Platforms

The Code explicitly brings aggregators into the social-security framework. Section 114 mandates that specified categories of aggregators contribute a prescribed percentage—ranging between 1 to 2 percent of annual turnover—toward the social-security fund for gig and platform workers. This contribution is capped to ensure it does not exceed 5 percent of total payments made to workers.

This provision formalises corporate accountability without reclassifying workers as employees. It recognises that platforms profit from network effects and data derived from workers’ labour; thus, a portion of those profits should sustain worker welfare. The contribution rate, though modest, establishes precedent for shared responsibility between the private and public sectors.

Compliance will require transparent auditing of aggregator revenues and worker payments. The government may link aggregator registration to timely contributions, enforced through digital filings similar to Goods and Services Tax mechanisms. Over time, the fund can accumulate substantial resources capable of financing insurance and pension schemes nationwide.

This model reconciles innovation with fairness—platforms retain operational flexibility, while workers gain collective protection financed by the ecosystem their labour sustains.

5.3 Contribution Rates and Funding Formula

Determining appropriate contribution rates is critical for sustainability. The Code provides the legal framework but leaves numerical parameters to subsequent rules. Policymakers must balance three objectives: adequacy of benefits, affordability for platforms, and administrative simplicity.

A plausible model could involve multi-tier financing: 1–2 percent from aggregators, 0.5 percent matching from government, and optional worker contributions for enhanced benefits. Contributions might flow into a National Social-Security Fund, subdivided into thematic sub-accounts—accident insurance, health, old-age, education. Funds can be invested in low-risk instruments to generate stable returns.

Transparency is vital. Annual public disclosure of fund inflows, utilisation, and performance will build trust among stakeholders. Digital dashboards integrated with e-Shram data can display real-time statistics on registered workers and disbursed benefits.

By designing a dynamic funding formula responsive to economic cycles, India can avoid the pitfalls of rigid payroll taxes that burden job creation, while ensuring continuous resource inflow for worker protection.

5.4 Social-Security Fund for Unorganised and Gig Workers

The Code’s most innovative financial instrument is the Social-Security Fund. It aggregates multiple revenue streams—government grants, aggregator contributions, penalties, and any other prescribed sources—into a unified pool dedicated to unorganised, gig, and platform workers.

This consolidation eliminates duplication across numerous small welfare boards and allows economies of scale. The Fund can support centralised procurement of insurance policies, nationwide awareness campaigns, or emergency assistance during crises such as pandemics or natural disasters.

Governance structures must ensure accountability. The National Social Security Board will oversee utilisation, while the Comptroller and Auditor General retains audit powers. States may maintain parallel funds feeding into the national pool.

In practical terms, this mechanism transforms sporadic welfare spending into a systematic fiscal framework. It embodies the principle that all economic participants—government, business, and labour—contribute to a common safety net.

5.5 Implementation through Digital Registration

Successful implementation hinges on comprehensive digital registration of workers. The Code mandates every eligible worker to register on an electronic portal using Aadhaar credentials, furnishing details of occupation, skill, and employer (if any). This process generates a unique identification number linking the worker to all future schemes.

Digital registration serves multiple purposes: it authenticates beneficiaries, enables portability across states and platforms, and provides policymakers with real-time labour-market data. Platforms are required to assist workers in registration by sharing verified lists with authorities.

Integration with payment gateways allows automatic deduction or credit of contributions. Mobile-friendly interfaces and multilingual support are essential to ensure accessibility for semi-literate workers. Public-awareness drives through digital and physical channels will encourage enrolment.

Over time, this system can evolve into a comprehensive labour-information repository, enabling predictive analytics for policy design and facilitating quick disbursal of benefits during emergencies. By marrying social security with digital infrastructure, India positions itself at the forefront of inclusive, technology-driven welfare governance.

6. Registration and Governance Framework

6.1 Process of Registration of Gig and Platform Workers

The registration process under the Social Security Code, 2020 represents the cornerstone of implementing social protection for gig and platform workers. Recognising the highly fluid and heterogeneous nature of this workforce, the Code mandates a centralised, digital registration system that ensures every eligible worker has a unique identification. This registration is designed to serve multiple purposes: first, to formally recognise workers who previously operated in the informal or invisible economy; second, to enable their inclusion in various social security schemes; and third, to provide a reliable database for policymakers, regulators, and aggregators.

Registration typically requires workers to provide personal details such as name, age, Aadhaar number, occupation, type of work, employer/aggregator details (if any), and income levels. The digital nature of the process allows workers to self-register through mobile apps or web portals, thus accommodating individuals who may not have a fixed workplace. For workers lacking digital literacy or internet access, the Code envisions facilitation through local government offices, social organisations, and aggregator support. This dual approach ensures inclusivity and accessibility, bridging the digital divide that often marginalises unorganised workers.

Once registered, workers are assigned a unique Social Security Identification Number (SSIN) that acts as a key for accessing welfare schemes, pensions, insurance coverage, and skill development programs. The use of digital authentication ensures accuracy and prevents duplication. Moreover, the system is designed to allow updates and corrections to personal or employment information, reflecting the dynamic nature of gig work. By maintaining a real-time, verifiable registry, the government can not only target benefits efficiently but also monitor labour trends, mobility, and participation across sectors.

The registration process also establishes a legal identity for gig and platform workers. This recognition is critical because, without formal identification, workers remain outside the ambit of statutory protections and struggle to claim benefits. Registration is thus not merely administrative; it is a transformative tool that converts informal labour into a legally acknowledged segment of the workforce. This formalisation allows the government and aggregators to design schemes that are appropriately tailored, such as accident insurance for delivery riders or pension schemes for freelance digital workers, ensuring that social security reaches the intended beneficiaries effectively.

Finally, integration with other national databases, such as Aadhaar and UPI, facilitates portability and continuity of benefits. Workers can retain their entitlements even when they migrate between states or switch platforms, reflecting the inherently mobile nature of the gig economy. This interoperability ensures that social security is not tied to geography or employer permanence, aligning with the Code’s vision of universal coverage for all eligible workers.

6.2 Role of National and State Social Security Boards

The Social Security Code, 2020 establishes a dual governance framework comprising National Social Security Boards (NSSB) and State Social Security Boards (SSSB). These boards play a pivotal role in shaping, monitoring, and implementing welfare schemes for gig and platform workers. At the national level, the NSSB formulates policy frameworks, designs national-level schemes, advises the government on contribution rates, and ensures standardisation across states. It also has oversight functions, ensuring that schemes are aligned with the objectives of inclusivity, adequacy, and sustainability.

State boards, on the other hand, focus on localisation and operationalisation. They adapt national guidelines to local conditions, ensuring that benefits are accessible in regions with varying infrastructure, cost of living, and occupational patterns. State boards are empowered to notify additional welfare programs to address local vulnerabilities or sector-specific risks. For instance, a coastal state with a high prevalence of delivery and logistics workers may introduce specialised accident insurance and health schemes to supplement the national framework.

Both levels of boards follow a tripartite composition, including representatives from government, employers/aggregators, and worker associations. This structure ensures participatory decision-making, balancing the interests of workers, businesses, and regulators. The inclusion of worker representatives is particularly important for gig and platform workers, as it allows their voices to inform policy decisions regarding benefit adequacy, claim procedures, and grievance mechanisms.

The boards are also responsible for monitoring implementation, auditing fund utilisation, evaluating programme effectiveness, and recommending adjustments based on feedback. They coordinate with aggregators to ensure timely contributions, assess compliance, and intervene in disputes. By creating this structured governance framework, the Code aims to institutionalise accountability, reduce administrative fragmentation, and maintain a continuous feedback loop for policy improvement.

6.3 Responsibilities of Aggregators and Employers

Aggregators and employers occupy a unique position under the Code. While gig and platform workers are not treated as traditional employees, platforms that facilitate their work are mandated to contribute to social security funds and assist in the registration and welfare delivery process. Their responsibilities include deducting and remitting contributions, reporting workforce data to government portals, facilitating digital registration, and assisting in benefit disbursal.

Platforms are expected to maintain transparent records of payments, assignments, and worker engagement. This documentation is crucial not only for calculating contributions but also for verifying eligibility for insurance, pensions, or skill-development schemes. Aggregators also have a role in worker education, ensuring that individuals understand their rights, entitlements, and procedures for accessing benefits. This is especially significant in a workforce that is highly mobile, often young, and frequently unbanked.

Beyond administrative duties, aggregators are encouraged to innovate in welfare delivery. For example, integrating insurance claim filing into the platform’s mobile app or providing automatic alerts for pension contributions can streamline access to benefits. In this sense, aggregators act as intermediaries between the government and the worker, translating legal mandates into practical, user-friendly systems.

Non-compliance attracts penalties, which can include fines or temporary suspension of aggregator registration. These enforcement measures incentivise adherence to the Code while preserving the platform’s operational autonomy. Overall, the responsibilities of aggregators are designed to balance the dual goals of worker protection and platform flexibility, ensuring that social security obligations do not stifle innovation but are implemented effectively.

6.4 Use of Aadhaar and Digital Databases

Aadhaar and digital databases form the backbone of social security delivery under the Code. Linking registration to Aadhaar ensures unique identification, authenticity, and portability of benefits. It also allows seamless integration with financial systems such as UPI and direct benefit transfer mechanisms, reducing delays, leakage, and corruption.

Digital databases enable real-time monitoring, analytics, and reporting. They provide government authorities with insights into the distribution of workers, contribution patterns, and fund utilisation. Aggregators, in turn, can access anonymised data to plan workforce engagement, assess risk exposure, and design supplementary welfare schemes.

Moreover, digital records facilitate interoperability across schemes. For example, a worker registered for health insurance, pension, and skill development can be tracked through a single portal, ensuring continuity even when switching aggregators or geographic locations. This also aids in emergency response, such as rapid claim settlement in case of accidents, by verifying worker identity and employment status through a digital record.

To safeguard privacy, the Code mandates strict data-protection protocols. Personal information is encrypted, access is role-based, and sharing with third parties requires explicit consent. These safeguards are critical, especially given the sensitive nature of worker data and the increasing risks of cyber exploitation.

6.5 Monitoring, Record-Keeping, and Accountability

Monitoring and record-keeping are crucial for translating statutory provisions into tangible benefits. The Code mandates both central and state authorities to maintain comprehensive records of registered workers, contributions, fund allocations, and claim settlements. Inspectors or facilitators periodically audit these records to ensure compliance and detect anomalies.

Accountability mechanisms include performance reviews of boards, grievance redressal systems, and publicly accessible reports on fund utilisation. Digital dashboards allow stakeholders—government, aggregators, and workers—to track disbursements, contribution inflows, and beneficiary coverage. Transparency strengthens trust in the system and helps prevent mismanagement of resources.

Regular audits, combined with automated monitoring tools, reduce reliance on manual inspections and enhance the efficiency of social security administration. Effective record-keeping also allows policymakers to assess gaps, identify underserved regions or worker categories, and refine schemes for greater impact. By embedding monitoring and accountability into the governance framework, the Code aims to ensure that social security delivery is not just statutory but operationally effective and equitable.

13. Criticisms and Expert Opinions

13.1 Ambiguities in the Code’s Language

While the Social Security Code, 2020 marks a landmark step in recognising gig and platform workers, experts have highlighted several ambiguities in its language that could hinder effective implementation. One major area of concern is the definition of employment categories. Though the Code formally recognises gig and platform workers, it does not fully clarify certain boundary cases—such as part-time digital freelancers, intermittent delivery agents, or hybrid workers who combine traditional employment with gig assignments. This ambiguity can create uncertainty about eligibility for schemes and lead to inconsistent interpretations across states.

Another source of confusion lies in contribution responsibilities. While aggregators are mandated to contribute to social security funds, the Code allows governments to prescribe contribution percentages through notifications. However, it does not explicitly address scenarios where platforms operate across multiple states or countries, or when workers engage with multiple platforms simultaneously. Legal scholars argue that such gaps could generate disputes over liability, reduce compliance, and delay benefit delivery.

Experts also point to vagueness in the administrative mechanisms. The Code requires digital registration, Aadhaar integration, and fund allocation, but does not specify technical standards, timelines, or interoperability protocols. In practice, states and aggregators may interpret these provisions differently, creating disparities in access. Moreover, enforcement mechanisms such as penalties or audits are outlined in general terms, leaving considerable discretion to authorities. Critics note that without clear operational guidelines, the Code risks becoming a framework in principle rather than a fully functional system in practice.

Finally, while the Code aspires to universal coverage, it does not adequately address the complexity of informal arrangements where workers lack digital literacy, bank accounts, or permanent addresses. Ambiguous language around registration facilitation, identity verification, and portability could exclude vulnerable workers who are most in need of protection. Scholars argue that precise definitions, detailed procedural rules, and scenario-based guidelines are essential for bridging the gap between legislative intent and practical outcomes.

13.2 Concerns about Actual Coverage

Despite formal recognition, questions remain about whether the Social Security Code will deliver real coverage for all gig and platform workers. One concern is that not all eligible workers may register due to lack of awareness, digital access, or perceived complexity of the process. Many gig workers operate on multiple platforms simultaneously or intermittently, making consistent participation in social security schemes challenging.

Another issue is financial adequacy. Critics argue that current contribution rates—typically 1–2% of aggregator turnover—may not generate sufficient funds to provide meaningful insurance, pensions, or skill-development benefits, particularly for high-risk occupations. If contributions remain minimal or schemes are underfunded, workers may receive symbolic protection rather than substantive support.

The scope of benefits also raises questions. Health insurance, life and disability cover, and old-age pensions are theoretically available, but access depends on scheme notification, administrative efficiency, and compliance by aggregators. Delays in scheme rollout or gaps in coverage could leave workers exposed. Academic studies suggest that the real-world impact of social security provisions often lags legislative promises, particularly in countries with large informal sectors.

Additionally, portability and enforcement are critical. Workers often migrate between cities or platforms, and their entitlements must move seamlessly. Yet fragmented implementation at state or aggregator levels could compromise portability, creating inequities. Experts caution that without robust monitoring, enforcement, and grievance redressal mechanisms, the Code may deliver patchy coverage, disproportionately benefiting tech-savvy or urban workers while leaving the most vulnerable behind.

13.3 Issues of Representation and Collective Bargaining

Another criticism concerns worker representation and collective bargaining rights. While the Code recognises gig and platform workers, it does not explicitly grant them the right to form unions or participate in collective negotiation mechanisms with aggregators. This limitation may reduce workers’ bargaining power, particularly regarding contribution rates, benefit adequacy, or dispute resolution.

Experts argue that social security cannot be fully effective without voice and agency. Workers must be able to negotiate terms, report grievances, and participate in scheme design through formal channels. While the Code envisions tripartite boards including worker representatives, these structures may not fully capture the diversity and scale of the gig workforce. Many workers operate individually or in dispersed networks, making collective organisation challenging.

Furthermore, representation challenges intersect with gender, caste, and regional disparities. Female workers, in particular, may face barriers to participation in boards or consultations, limiting their influence on maternity benefits, safety provisions, or flexible working arrangements. Academic critiques suggest that effective inclusion requires proactive mechanisms to ensure diverse and equitable representation, beyond merely providing a legal framework for board membership.

13.4 Academic and Policy Critiques

Academics and policy analysts have both praised and critiqued the Social Security Code. On the positive side, it represents conceptual innovation, recognising non-traditional work forms and institutionalising digital governance for social security. It also reflects global trends in protecting platform labour without compromising entrepreneurial innovation.

However, critiques focus on implementation gaps. Scholars note the potential mismatch between legislative ambition and administrative capacity, particularly in states with weak digital infrastructure or high informal labour participation. Some argue that reliance on aggregator contributions creates vulnerability, as funds depend on private compliance, platform profitability, and timely reporting.

Others highlight the risk of fragmentation, with multiple schemes, varying contribution formulas, and differing state-level implementations potentially creating inequality. There is also concern about the lack of judicial clarity on coverage disputes, as courts may be called upon to interpret ambiguous definitions, leading to uneven jurisprudence.

Policy experts recommend complementing the Code with targeted pilot programs, robust monitoring systems, awareness campaigns, and collaboration with civil society organisations to ensure the intended outcomes are realised. Without such supplementary measures, there is a risk that gig and platform workers may remain formally recognised yet inadequately protected.

14. The Way Forward: Recommendations and Reforms

14.1 Strengthening Legal Enforcement

To translate the Code’s promises into tangible outcomes, strong legal enforcement is essential. Clear procedural rules, standardised contribution requirements, and strict compliance timelines can reduce ambiguity. Governments may establish dedicated enforcement units with digital audit capabilities to track aggregator contributions, scheme implementation, and beneficiary registration.

Penalties for non-compliance should be well-defined and consistently applied. Public disclosure of non-compliant platforms can create reputational incentives, encouraging adherence. Additionally, judicial guidelines and precedents must clarify eligibility criteria, dispute resolution procedures, and the interaction of central and state schemes. Strong enforcement ensures that legal recognition does not remain symbolic but effectively secures worker welfare.

14.2 Expanding Scheme Coverage

Current schemes may not fully address the diverse needs of gig and platform workers. Policymakers should expand coverage to include income-smoothing mechanisms, supplementary accident insurance, mental health support, and continuous skill development. Tailored programmes for high-risk sectors, seasonal workers, and marginalised populations can ensure inclusivity.

Integration with existing national schemes, such as PM-SYM, Ayushman Bharat, or Atal Pension Yojana, can improve efficiency and reduce administrative duplication. Periodic review of scheme adequacy, contribution levels, and benefit delivery can help adapt social security to changing work patterns and demographic shifts.

14.3 Enhancing Tripartite Consultation

Meaningful worker participation is critical. Expanding tripartite consultation beyond board representation to include sector-specific councils, digital forums, and grievance committees can improve scheme design and implementation. Encouraging civil society, labour NGOs, and worker collectives to participate ensures diverse perspectives, particularly of women, migrant, and low-income workers.

Platforms should also engage in collaborative dialogue to negotiate benefit structures, contribution modalities, and dispute-resolution mechanisms. Tripartite consultation strengthens legitimacy, transparency, and responsiveness of social security programs.

14.4 Ensuring Sustainable Funding Models

Financial sustainability is vital. Policymakers should explore multi-stakeholder funding, combining aggregator contributions, government matching funds, and optional worker co-contributions. Investment of the social security fund in low-risk instruments can generate additional returns, supplementing scheme financing.

Flexible contribution models that adjust for income fluctuations, seasonal employment, or multi-platform engagement can prevent overburdening workers while ensuring adequate coverage. Periodic actuarial reviews can optimise fund allocation, ensuring long-term viability of pension, insurance, and skill-development programs.

14.5 Promoting Awareness and Inclusion

Social security schemes are effective only if workers are aware and able to access them. Awareness campaigns using social media, platform notifications, community outreach, and multilingual educational material are essential. Simplified registration processes, mobile app integration, and local facilitation centres can improve inclusion.

Special focus on marginalised groups—women, migrant workers, rural populations—ensures equitable access. Training programs to improve digital literacy and financial awareness further empower workers to actively engage with social security mechanisms, strengthening the Code’s impact.

15. Conclusion

The Social Security Code, 2020 marks a transformative moment in India’s labour law framework. By formally recognising gig and platform workers, it addresses the structural invisibility that has long characterised India’s informal workforce. Through digital registration, aggregator contributions, and tripartite governance, the Code lays the foundation for a comprehensive, inclusive, and flexible social security ecosystem.

However, legislative ambition must be matched with effective implementation, clear operational guidelines, robust monitoring, and sustained funding. Ambiguities in definitions, limited awareness among workers, and variability in platform compliance pose significant challenges. Addressing these issues through targeted reforms, expanded scheme coverage, and participatory governance will be critical to realising the Code’s full potential.

Ultimately, the Code represents not only legal recognition but a social commitment to protect, empower, and dignify workers in a rapidly evolving digital economy. With thoughtful execution, it can serve as a model for inclusive social protection in the 21st century, ensuring that every gig and platform worker in India enjoys the security, stability, and opportunities they deserve.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. What is the Social Security Code, 2020?
The Social Security Code, 2020 is a legislative framework in India that consolidates multiple labour laws to provide social security benefits to workers, including gig and platform workers. It aims to ensure access to insurance, pensions, health, maternity, and skill development benefits.

2. Who qualifies as a gig or platform worker under the Code?
A gig worker is someone who performs work or services for payment through digital platforms or aggregators. A platform worker is specifically engaged through online or app-based platforms that connect workers with customers. The Code formally recognises these categories to provide social security coverage.

3. How are social security benefits funded for gig and platform workers?
Funding comes from multiple sources: contributions from aggregators and platforms, matching grants from the Central and State Governments, and other prescribed sources. The funds are collected in a Social Security Fund dedicated to unorganised and gig workers.

4. Do gig workers become employees under this Code?
No. Gig and platform workers are not classified as employees, and the Code maintains their independent contractor status. However, they are entitled to social security benefits without being formally employed.

5. What types of social security benefits are available under the Code?
Workers can access:

• Life and disability insurance
• Health and maternity benefits
• Old-age protection and pension schemes
• Education and skill development support

6. How does registration work for gig and platform workers?
Workers register digitally using Aadhaar and other personal details. Registration provides a unique Social Security Identification Number, enabling access to all schemes. Aggregators and local facilitation centres assist workers with registration.

7. What role do aggregators and platforms play in social security?
Aggregators must contribute financially to the social security fund, assist in registration, maintain records of worker payments, and facilitate access to benefits. They act as intermediaries between the government and workers without assuming employer liability.

8. Are social security benefits portable across states or platforms?
Yes. Digital registration and Aadhaar integration allow workers to retain benefits even if they move between states or switch platforms. Portability ensures continuous protection and access to services.

9. What are the challenges in implementing the Code?
Implementation challenges include:

• Ambiguities in definitions and eligibility
• Fragmented platform ecosystem
• Limited awareness among workers
• Funding and compliance difficulties
• Technological and administrative bottlenecks

10. How does the Code compare with global practices?
Countries like the European Union, UK, USA, China, and Indonesia have implemented varying models for platform worker protection, ranging from special employment categories to mandatory social security contributions. India’s Code draws lessons from these models while tailoring provisions for its unique informal and digital economy.

11. How can the Code be improved?
Experts recommend:

• Clarifying definitions and contribution mechanisms
• Expanding scheme coverage and adequacy
• Strengthening enforcement and monitoring
• Enhancing worker representation and collective bargaining
• Promoting awareness, inclusion, and digital literacy

12. Where can gig and platform workers get help regarding their social security rights?
Workers can approach:

• National and State Social Security Boards
• Aggregator support desks
• Digital portals linked to government schemes
• Civil society organisations or worker unions advocating for rights