New Year’s Eve Gig Worker Logouts Across Indian Cities
On New Year’s Eve, delivery partners across several Indian cities announced a collective decision to log out of food delivery platforms. For consumers, it translated into delayed meals. For platforms such as Swiggy and Zomato, it meant operational strain during peak demand.
Leadership and Core Allegation
The strike, led by the Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT) and the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Union (TGPWU), centres on “algorithmic exploitation.”
Specific Demands Raised by Gig Workers
- A “Minimum Floor” for Pay: With rising fuel costs, the “base pay” per delivery has become unsustainable.
- The Right to Be Heard: Currently, if a customer complains (even falsely), the app can “block” a worker instantly. There is no human manager to talk to—just a chatbot.
- Safety Over Speed: The 10-minute delivery promise puts immense pressure on riders, leading to accidents that the companies often refuse to take liability for.
The Misplaced “Right to Strike” Debate
The debate is often framed as whether gig workers have a “right to strike.” That framing itself is misleading. Before the law can answer whether a right exists, it must answer a more basic question: are gig workers the kind of persons to whom labour law speaks at all?
Do They Have a Constitutional Right to Protest?
Even if the Labour Codes are silent on gig worker strikes, the Constitution of India is not.
Under Article 19(1)(c), all citizens have the fundamental right to “form associations or unions.” This is the strongest weapon the workers have. Even if Zomato calls them “partners,” the Constitution allows them to gather and collectively demand better terms.
Key Legal Precedent: The “Control Test”
In various cases, such as Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra (1957), the Supreme Court established the “Control Test.”
It basically says: if a company controls how you work, when you work, and what you get paid, you are an employee—no matter what the contract says.
Gig workers argue that since the App decides their route, their pay, and their uniform, the company has “Total Control.” Therefore, they should be treated as employees with a full right to strike.
The Big Legal Question: Are They “Employees” or “Partners”?
Indian labour law is not person-centric; it is category-centric. Almost all collective labour rights are routed through a single legal identity: the workman.
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defined “workman” in functional terms. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 retains this logic, even while expanding definitions elsewhere. Collective bargaining, industrial disputes, and strikes are all mechanisms designed for workmen employed in an industrial establishment.
If a person does not qualify as a workman, labour law does not prohibit their protest—but it also does not protect it.
The “Independent Contractor” Classification
Companies use a clever legal loophole: they classify delivery agents as “Independent Contractors.” By doing this, they argue that the workers are their own bosses. If you are your own boss, you can’t “strike” against yourself—you’re just choosing not to work.
Delivery partners are not issued appointment letters. They are not placed on payrolls. Platforms repeatedly assert that there is no employer–employee relationship, only a contractual association governed by terms of service.
Once this claim is accepted, labour law simply stops applying.
The Paradox of the Code on Social Security, 2020
For the first time in Indian history, the law officially recognizes “gig workers” and “platform workers.” On paper, this is a victory. The code mandates that aggregators contribute 1–2% of their turnover to a central Social Security Fund.
But there is a catch.
By creating a new category for these workers, the law has simultaneously reinforced their status as non-employees. Under traditional laws like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the right to strike is a statutory right granted to “workmen.”
Because gig workers are classified as “partners,” the companies argue that they are not “striking”—they are simply “refusing to provide services,” which could be viewed as a breach of contract rather than a protected labor action.
Statutory Definitions Introduced
| Provision | Legal Recognition |
|---|---|
| Section 2(35) | For the first time, Indian law defines a “Gig Worker.” |
| Section 2(60) | Defines a “Platform Worker.” |
While this law finally gives them some benefits (like accident insurance), it still avoids calling them “employees.” This keeps them in a legal “Grey Zone”—they are recognised enough to get insurance, but not recognised enough to have a formal, legal right to strike under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Recognition Without Empowerment
However, the Code carefully avoids creating an employment relationship.
- No provision converts gig workers into workmen.
- No provision grants them collective bargaining rights.
- No provision addresses dispute resolution between platforms and workers.
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which governs strikes under Sections 62 and 63, applies only to industrial establishments employing workmen. Since gig workers fall outside this category, the Code never reaches them.
This legislative architecture reveals a deliberate policy choice: recognition without empowerment.
Is a Gig Worker Strike a “Strike” in Law?
Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act defined strike as a cessation of work by a body of workmen. The Industrial Relations Code maintains the same conceptual structure.
Gig workers do not meet this threshold.
Legally speaking, when delivery partners collectively log out, they are not striking under labour law. They are engaging in a coordinated refusal to accept contractual work.
This distinction matters because labour law consequences—such as illegality of strike, notice requirements, or employer retaliation—do not neatly apply.
The result is paradoxical. Gig worker protests are real, visible, and economically impactful, yet legally undefined.
Strike Definition: Traditional Workers vs Gig Workers
| Aspect | Traditional Workmen | Gig Workers |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Status | Recognised as “workmen” | Not recognised as workmen |
| Nature of Strike | Cessation of work under labour law | Coordinated refusal to accept contractual work |
| Statutory Protection | Protected if strike is legal | No statutory protection |
Protection Versus Permission
Indian law does not criminalise gig worker protests. Peaceful assembly and association remain constitutionally protected.
But labour law protection is not about permission; it is about insulation from retaliation.
A workman participating in a legal strike enjoys protection against dismissal. A gig worker does not. Account deactivation, incentive withdrawal, or reduced order allocation have no statutory remedy.
The law neither forbids the protest nor shields the protester.
This absence of protection is not accidental. It flows directly from the refusal to treat gig workers as workmen.
Where This Leaves Us
The platform worker protests expose a structural weakness in Indian labour law. The legal framework assumes that work happens in factories, offices, and registered establishments. Platform labour disrupts that assumption.
Until Indian courts or Parliament confront the question of whether algorithmic control can substitute traditional supervision, gig workers will remain outside the protective core of labour law.
Their strikes will continue to exist in practice, but not in doctrine.
What Happens if the Strike Goes Forward?
If the delivery partners log off on December 31st, the companies might try to “Terminated for Breach of Contract.” This is where the legal battle gets intense.
Breach of Contract
- The companies will argue that the “Partners” signed an agreement to provide services.
- By striking, they are breaking that contract.
Collective Bargaining
- The workers will argue that a contract that prevents them from demanding a living wage is “Unconscionable” and against public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The Nature of a Gig Worker Strike
For a gig worker, striking does not involve factory gates or picket lines. It involves something far quieter—and far more precarious.
Logging out of the app.
There is no termination letter. No show-cause notice. Sometimes, not even an explanation. An algorithm decides whether tomorrow’s orders will come, whether incentives will apply, or whether the account will remain active.
This asymmetry of power is what makes gig worker strikes fundamentally different from traditional labour movements. The protest may be collective, but the consequences are deeply individual.
And often invisible.
Indian Judicial Approach: Avoidance Rather Than Engagement
Indian courts possess the doctrinal tools to address gig work. Tests for determining employment relationships already exist in jurisprudence. What has been missing is their application to platform labour.
Judicial Precedents On Employment Relationships
In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213, the Supreme Court famously expanded the definition of “industry” to include a wide range of organised economic activity. The judgment emphasised functional realities rather than formalistic categories.
In Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union (1978) 4 SCC 257, the Court went further, recognising that economic control and dependency could establish an employer–employee relationship even where intermediaries existed.
- Focus on economic realities over contractual labels
- Recognition of indirect control through intermediaries
- Emphasis on dependency and economic power imbalance
These cases suggest that Indian labour law is not inherently rigid. Yet, when it comes to gig workers, courts have largely confined themselves to peripheral issues such as welfare schemes or insurance coverage, without confronting the core question of employment status.
Consequences Of Judicial Restraint
This judicial restraint has consequences. As long as gig workers are not legally recognised as workmen, the protective framework of labour law remains out of reach.
| Judicial Approach | Practical Outcome |
|---|---|
| Avoidance of employment status determination | Gig workers remain outside core labour protections |
| Focus on welfare schemes | No enforceable labour rights |
Why Gig Workers Rarely Qualify As “Workmen” Today
Under Section 2(zr) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the definition of “worker” continues to rely on traditional employment indicators. Gig workers typically fail to satisfy these indicators in formal terms.
Platform Arguments And Traditional Tests
Platforms argue that delivery partners are free to choose working hours, reject orders, and work for multiple platforms simultaneously. These arguments resonate with older notions of independent contracting.
- Freedom to choose working hours
- Ability to reject tasks
- Simultaneous engagement with multiple platforms
Algorithmic Control And Modern Realities
However, this reasoning overlooks modern forms of control. Algorithmic management dictates incentives, prioritises certain workers over others, and penalises non-compliance invisibly. Yet, because control is not exercised through human supervision, it escapes traditional legal scrutiny.
As a result, gig workers are excluded not because control is absent, but because it is technologically mediated.
Conclusion: A Strike Without A Statute
Gig workers in India can protest. They can mobilise. They can disrupt markets.
But they cannot strike in the legal sense, because the law has not yet decided who they are.
The platform worker protests are not merely labour disputes. They are signals of a deeper misalignment between law and labour. Until Indian labour law confronts the reality of platform control and economic dependency, gig workers will continue to operate in a paradox—essential to the economy, visible in society, yet invisible in statute.
For now, when a delivery partner logs out in protest, it is not the law that responds. It is the app.
