Empowering the Gig Worker- Comparative
Insights and Pathways for Reform.
Godala Alexandria Minakshi Devi,
3rd Year, LLB,
University of Leeds, UK
Abstract
This research examines the legal status of gig
workers in India, a rapidly growing workforce segment. Despite the significant
contribution of the gig economy, existing labour lawsfail to address the unique
challenges and vulnerabilities these workers face. While the Social Security
Code 2020 offers some benefits, its implementation remains weak. Although some
states have introduced legislation to benefit gig workers, there needs to be an
effort all over India, and implementation needs to be effective. Drawing
parallels with the UK, where the landmark Uber v Aslam case emphasised the
reality of work over contractual terms, this research advocates a shift in
focus in India. Key recommendations for reform include clear legal definitions,
minimum wage guarantees, collective bargaining rights, and more vigorous
enforcement mechanisms. By implementing these reforms, India can ensure that
the benefits of the gig economy are shared equitably and that gig workers have
the necessary protections to thrive in this dynamic and increasingly important
sector.
Introduction
The gig economy supports flexible and on-demand work
opportunities and has changed the global economy. The gig economy uses advancements
in technology and digital platforms, and it connects workers with consumers for
tasks and services, often supported by apps and websites. This model has
reshaped traditional employment structures, offering benefits like autonomy and
flexibility while posing challenges to job security, working hours and minimum
wage.
Historically, labour laws in India have focused on
formal employment relationships, which leaves gig workers outside their protective
framework. Traditional laws, such as the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 and the
Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, do not apply to gig workers, and they do not
have critical protections such as minimum wages, social security, and
safeguards against unfair termination.
Gig Workers in India can be broadly classified as
platform workers who perform tasks through digital apps like food delivery or
ride-sharing apps and non–platform workers who operate independently, such as
freelancers or construction workers. While gig work offers flexibility and
income opportunities, it exposes workers to vulnerabilities such as
inconsistent earnings, lack of benefits, and absence of formal grievance
redressal mechanisms.
Recognising these challenges, the Indian government
introduced the Code on Social Security, 2020, which formally defines gig and
platform workers. The Code proposes measures such as life and disability
insurance, accident coverage, and a social security fund financed partly by
platform aggregators. However, implementing these measures remains limited, and
gig workers lack awareness and face difficulty accessing benefits. Moreover,
the current framework does not address fundamental labour rights, including
minimum wage guarantees and collective bargaining.
State-level initiatives, such as the Rajasthan
Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023, and the
proposed Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare)
Bill, 2024, represent significant steps toward improving the welfare of gig
workers.These legislations aim to establish welfare boards, enforce
registration mechanisms, and create social security funds for gig workers. Despite
these efforts, challenges persist in providing comprehensive protection and ensuring
effective enforcement.
Globally, experiences of countries like the United
Kingdom offer valuable insights into addressing gig worker vulnerabilities. The
landmark Uber v Aslam Judgement emphasised recognising the realities of
employment relationships over contractual terms, granting workers essential
rights like minimum wages and regulated working hours. Such approaches highlight
the need for clear legal definitions and robust enforcement mechanisms to
protect gig workers without compromising the flexibility inherent in gig work.
In conclusion, the gig economy holds immense
potential to drive economic growth and provide employment opportunities. However,
its success depends on balancing flexibility and worker protection. By learning
from international best practices and strengthening domestic frameworks, India
can ensure that its gig workers receive equitable treatment and integrate them
into a sustainable labour system.
The current legal status of gig workers in India
The gig economy is a new phenomenon emerging from technological advancements and the digital economy.[1] According to Radhakrishnan and Singha Roy, the gig economy is ‘the collection of markets that match providers to consumers on a gig (or job) basis in support of on-demand commerce.'[2]India has 15 million gig workers, making up 40% of the global gig workers; it is the fifth largest gig economy.[3]A recent study by NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India) found that the number of gig economy workers will rise to 23.5 million by 2029-30.[4]
Similarly, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 focuses
on resolving industrial disputes and promotes industrial peace through
conciliation, arbitration, and adjudication. It applies to formal industries,
including manufacturing, trade, business, and services establishments with a
clear employer-employee relationship.[8]The
Act provides key worker protections, such as prohibitions on unfair labour
practices, rights related to layoffs, retrenchments, and terminations, and
mandatory notice and compensation for retrenched employees. It also mandates
the formation of works committees in establishments with one hundred or more
workers to address grievances and regulates the legality of strikes.[9]
The Social Security Code 2020 acknowledges the
situation of gig workers and provides them with some benefits. However, they
lack the essential rights all workers in all fields of employment should have. Of
the Labour codes in India, only the Code related to social security is relevant
to gig workers; as a result, Gig workers cannot get protections offered by
other codes like the National minimum wage, occupational safety, and overtime
pay.[19]Moreover,
gig workers cannot access specialised redressal mechanisms under the Industrial
Disputes Act 1947.[20] Also,
they are not entitled to collective bargaining due to their non-conventional
work. Even though the Social Security
Code 2020 might not be that extensive, it is commendable that India has taken a
step forward in legally protecting gig workers. An extensive mechanism to
protect gig workers' legal rights is vital.
Additionally, the rapid expansion
of the gig economy in India has led to the creation of laws by the states of
Rajasthan and Karnataka to protect the rights and welfare of gig workers. This
article delves into the specifics of the Rajasthan platform-based Gig Workers (Registration
and Welfare) Act, 2023 and the proposed Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers
(Social Security and Welfare) Bill 2024, analysing their provisions, specific impact,and
the challenges they might encounter.
The Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig
Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act,2023, was enacted on July 24, 2023. The
Rajasthan legislation has pioneered India in providing Social Security and
welfare benefits to gig workers at an extensive level. The key provisions of
this Act include:
2.
Registration
Mechanism: Aggregators must submit a database of all their platform-based gig workers
to the Board within sixty days of the Act's enforcement; this facilitates the
automatic registration of gig workers, each receiving a unique identification
number. Such a system aims to bring gig workers under labour regulation,
enabling them to access social security benefits and other entitlements.[22]
3.
Social
Security and welfare fund: The Act introduces a welfare fee, ranging from 1% to
2% of the value of each transaction involving gig workers, which charges the aggregators.
This fee contributes to the Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers Social
Security and Welfare Fund, which finances various social security schemes,
including health insurance, accident coverage and other welfare measures.[23]
4.
Grievance
redressal mechanism: Registered gig workers under this mechanism can file a
complaint with the appropriate authority, as this Act requires;[24]this
ensures that gig workers can cope with work-related issues and get fair treatment.
5.
Penalties
for Non-compliance: The Act stipulates stringent penalties for aggregators and
primary employers who violate its provisions, with fines reaching up to fifty
lakhs for aggregators; this deters non-compliance and ensures adherence to the
Act’s mandate. [25]
The Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023, and the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Bill, 2024, are significant in protecting gig workers. Nevertheless, they do not explicitly propose establishing minimum wage standards or regulating working hours for gig workers. Both laws propose a grievance redressal mechanism system; however, the Rajasthan Act lacks detailed procedures, making it difficult for workers to seek remedies, and the Karnataka Bill introduces a two-level grievance redressal system, but this might not be effective if it is not accessible to workers. Therefore, governments need to promote awareness of these acts.Neither legislation explicitly grants gig workers the right to collective bargaining, an important right to empower workers to voice their concerns.
In conclusion, the Rajasthan Act,
and the Karnataka Bill mark considerable progress in addressing the challenges
faced by gig workers in India. However, these laws need precise definitions,
better implementation strategies, and awareness campaigns to inform workers
about their rights to be truly effective. Additionally, grievance redressal
mechanisms must be accessible and efficient to ensure timely dispute resolution.
The situation of gig workers in
The United Kingdom
This research examines the
landmark case of Uber v Aslam, a UK judgement withsignificant benefits for
determining the employment status of people in the gig economy.[33]
The Supreme Court prioritised the reality of Uber's relationship with the
drivers over the written contract, employing a purposive approach to
determining worker status. This approach considers factors like control and
subordination to which the workers are subject. One must appreciate The Supreme
Court's efforts in examining reality, as written contracts often misrepresent
it.
Moreover, The Supreme Court has
shifted from the traditional mutuality of obligations, prioritising an ongoing
exchange between the employer and the putative worker, to giving importance to
the minimum irreducible to work. In other words, they considered the drivers
working while logged into the app. This liberal stance towards mutuality will
not cause employers to misrepresent the employment status using mutuality
clauses.
The purposive method has assisted
Uber drivers to fall within s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or
the Limb (b) worker category, which offers some critical employment rights like
National minimum wage and the right to restrict their working hours.[34]
Uber drafted contractual agreements that depicted it as only a technology
platform that acts as an agent for drivers,[35]which
was far from the truth, as Uber significantly controlled the drivers to the
extent that the platform decided their fares for the rides; they were required
to maintain a specific rating and accept rides constantly. Otherwise, the app logs them off for about
ten minutes.[36]
Hence, the Supreme Court was required to examine the drivers' control,
subordination, and level of integration into Uber. [37]
The court developed this approach in Autoclenz, where it also ruled to set
aside contractual documents if they differ from the actual agreement.[38]
Although concerned academics and
judges disagree with using the purposive approach and discuss its negative impacts,
"armies of lawyers" draft employment contracts, these contracts are
often used to misrepresent the realities of the working relationship and
cleverly exclude someone from attaining worker status for the employer's
benefit. [43] In other words, as McClelland suggests, the
hiring persons often have a higher bargaining power than the ones getting
hired. 19Nevertheless, the courts do not always undermine
contractual agreements when they are not necessary or when the contractual
documents represent the reality of the situation. For instance, the court was
less willing to intervene when both parties to the contract willingly applied
the self-employed label in Massey v Crown Life Insurance.[44]
Furthermore, the court in Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions decided
that the person concerned was not an employee as he was allowed to exercise
significant control over his work.[45]Thus,
as noted by Adams-Prassl, Uber's judgement focuses on the marginalised people
designated as self–employed independent contractors due to unfair contractual
terms.[46]
The Supreme Court's ruling
reaffirms and expands on the approach used in Autoclenz, emphasising that the
focus in establishing worker status is on the genuine connection between the
putative worker and the putative employer. The critical issue is whether the
appropriate legislation protects the relationship. It is firmly established in
this case that contractual documents do not serve as a starting point which
benefits people in the gig economy.
The
traditional view of mutuality of obligations is ‘a contractual consideration in
a single engagement or an ongoing obligation to offer and accept work’.[49] In
O'Kelly v Trusthouse, the court endorsed this
view by deciding that casual waiters are not employees because they are not
obligated to accept work, and employers are not obligated to offer work.[50]McGaughey argues that by applying this view of
mutuality to zero-hour contract workers, they will always be designated as
self-employed, as the employers can draft contracts to deny the existence of
any mutuality between the parties. [51]
According to Moore, there is also a hidden intention behind the employer's intention to deny mutuality and claim that workers can refuse to accept work. When workers refuse to work, employers can deny them future employment, making them commit to the employer,[52]this indicates that even if employers deny the existence of mutual obligations, the putative workers would still be obligated to work, and they would seldom use the right to refuse work as they would be denied work in the future. Moreover, it is a clever way for employers to evade workers' employment rights; this was the precise situation in Uber-when the workers did not accept the rides for a certain period, Uber denied them work, and if the court did not deny the traditional mutuality test in Uber, the drivers would be denied worker status as Uber argued that the workers did not have an ongoing obligation to offer and accept work and this lack of obligation does not logically create a contractual obligation to work for uber.[53]However, the Supreme Court in Uber vehemently contended that the drivers are working when logged into the app, and their ability to turn down specific requests does not mean that they are not workers, as there is a minimum irreducible to work. One could consider this.[54]
The Supreme Court in Uber
further quoted Elias J in James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd, where it could draw a
comparison between Uber drivers and other casual workers who have no
obligations between their engagements, but this does not disqualify them from
having employment status.[55]In
other words, absence or gaps in work should not affect a worker's status during
the working period. The Supreme Court's
decision to view the mutuality of obligations in this manner, to consider the
minimumirreducible importance, and to imply this to be a consideration will
help Uber drivers and have a broader impact on the gig economy. Employers would
not be able to misrepresent employment contracts using mutuality of
obligations.
Although the Supreme Court in Uber v Aslam has
taken a liberal stance towards mutuality clauses, the same has not occurred in
cases where parties have used substitution clauses.[56]
In some instances, like Pimlico Plumbers, the Supreme Court upheld employment
rights even when there was a right to use a substitute. [57] Furthermore, the courts have held that the
right to use a substitute is consistent with worker status when the worker is
unable to perform.[58]
However,
personal performance remains an important factor in considering someone to be a
worker.[59] Although Uber v Aslam has used a purposive
approach, which is quite liberal, to determine the worker status while
considering factors like control and subordination the workers are being
subject to, the Act of affirming personal performance, in this case, will
provide an unduly fertile ground for these gig economy services to find
loopholes and create sham contracts through the right to use substitutes.
Adams-Prassl
has argued that the employment tribunal has become the only source of enforcing
employment rights. He also emphasises the significant costs and delays involved
in individual litigation. [63]
The extent to which platforms like Uber will comply with these judgements is
very uncertain, which could leave workers vulnerable.[64] Atkinson
agrees with this and claims that the UK’s approach towards protecting gig
economy workers is weak as it lacks substantial legislative reforms. [65]
As
part of its Good Work plan (2018), the UK government also discussed that
legislation does not clarify what constitutes an employment contract and the
employment tribunal’s efforts to create multiple tests to understand employment
status.[69]
Hence, another element of the UK's approach to labour law cases is the absence
of a unified test to determine individuals' employment status. Multiple outdated tests, like the test of
mutuality, personal performance, and control, are argued to lead to confusion,
make it challenging to determine employment status, and create a leeway for gig
economy platforms to find loopholes to evade employment rights.[70]
Thus, having a single unified test might considerably solve confusion regarding
determining employment status.
These
strategies and the decision's impact in Uber v Aslam will deter employers from
misrepresenting and creating sham contracts. Nevertheless, individual
litigation and the courts as the only source of enforcing employment rights
will not have a significant impact, as employers might find loopholes.[71]
What
India can learn from the United Kingdom?
India can draw lessons from the
UK’s Uber v Aslam ruling, which emphasised the actual working relationship over
written contractual terms. The UK Supreme Court's purposive approach to
determining worker status ensures employers cannot use cleverly drafted
contracts to misrepresent employment status. Indian courts must consider that
although Employers classify these gig workers as independent contractors, they
often function under severe employer control and restrictions.
Thirdly, the UK ensures that gig
workers classified under Limb (b) are entitled to a national minimum wage and
restrictions on excessive working hours. India lacks equivalent protections,
leaving gig workers vulnerable to exploitation and poor compensation. Learning
from the UK’s approach, India could establish statutory minimum wage guarantees
for gig workers and regulate their working hours.
Fourth, the UK’s national
insurance system and employment tribunals provide a structured framework for
enforcing gig workers' rights. India's legislative efforts, such as the Social
Security Code 2020, suffer from weak enforcement and a lack of worker awareness.
India can adopt streamlined grievance redressal mechanisms and accessible judicial
processes to ensure compliance with its laws.
What the UK can learn from India?
Firstly, India’s recent efforts
to improve the position of gig workers through legislative provisions are
commendable; they reflect a commitment to addressing the unique challenges of
gig work. The UK could benefit from these legislative measuresrather than rely
heavily on judicial interpretation.
Secondly, India’s Law mandates
that aggregators contribute a percentage of their turnover to social security
funds for gig workers. This model ensures a continuous funding mechanism for
worker welfare schemes. The UK could implement a similar aggregator contribution
system to supplement its national insurance framework.
India’s recognition of the need
to tailor policies to meet the specific needs of certain states is commendable.
The UK could invest in a similar legislative framework to meet the requirements
of various parts of the country.
Reforms that would change the
situation of gig workers in India.
First, gig workers must be
classified clearly within labour laws to ensure that gig workers should receive
appropriate rights and protections. The Social Security Code recognises gig
workers but does not clearly define their status or offer adequate protection.[72]As
discussed previously, the UK clearly defines gig workers as Limb (b) workers
and guarantees them a national minimum wage. India should follow this model and
set a minimum wage for gig workers to compensate them fairly. In addition,
Platforms need to provide clear information on payment structures, including
deductions and incentives, to promote transparency and trust. Paigam and
Janpahal, non–profit organisations, also suggest guaranteeing a baseline income
for gig workers. They also advise regular evaluation and adjustment to align
with inflation and the cost of living. As suggested by Coyle, A British
economist, gig workers do not choose to be self-employed and work in the gig
economy because they profit from it but because they have no other choice. The
suggestions of Paigam and Janpahalcorrelate with Coyle's statement and can
significantly improve their situation. [73]
As mentioned, gig workers do not have the right to unionisation and collective bargaining. As a result, it is difficult for them to express their needs, making it difficult for even the government to understand what legislation they need to introduce to improve the situation of gig workers. Therefore, gig workers should be allowed to form or join unions to collectively negotiate better terms and conditions. Organisations like the Indian Federation of APP-based Transport Workers are crucial in advocating for gig workers' rights. Another suggestion could be to encourage gig workers and representatives of platforms to be a part of the committee and understand concerns.
Conclusion
It is a fact that the gig economy has emerged as a formidable force in the global labour market, offering many opportunities and flexibilities. In India, this would lead to the potential growth of the labour force, which would offer many job opportunities. However, as the gig economy is a non-traditional work sector, the workers face many problems like job security; regulating working hours and minimum wage remain a concern as few legal protections solve their problems.
India’s existing labour laws, such as the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 and the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, were designed for traditional employment models and failed to address the needs of gig workers. While introducing the Code on Social Security 2020 represents a crucial step toward recognising gig workers, its implementation remains limited. Different measures introduced by this Code, like disability and life insurance, accident coverage, and a social security fund, are commendable. However, it does not address critical rights such as minimum wage guarantees, regulating working hours, and collective bargaining. Furthermore, the reliance on self-registration and the lack of awareness among gig workers exacerbate their exclusion from their benefits.
State–level initiatives, including the Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023, and the proposed Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Bill, 2024, mark progressive steps in bridging these gaps. These legislations establish welfare boards, introduce grievance redressal mechanisms, and mandate contributions from aggregators to social security funds. However, their limited scope and lack of focus on foundational labour rights leave gig workers vulnerable to exploitation and bad working conditions.
Globally, countries like the United Kingdom have taken significant strides in addressing gig worker issues. The landmark Uber v Aslam has addressed this issue by recognising the realities of employment and its diversity. The government of India and state governments must understand that progress will lie in clearly defining employment categories, minimum wage guarantees, and the right to collective bargaining. The most important lesson from the United Kingdom is to understand that these workers must have a separate category. The UK describes these workers as Limb (b) and provides certain benefits like minimum wage.
India’s path moving forward should be to create a comprehensive legal framework tailored to the unique needs of workers in India. The Indian government needs to introduce laws that address the basic needs of gig workers, like a minimum wage guarantee, regulating working hours, no penalty for refusing to do a specific task, social security provisions and the right to collective bargaining. All the states of India must introduce laws to ensure all gig workers have access to these rights. In addition, the central and state governments also need to ensure that gig workers are aware of these laws and can benefit from them. The government needs to use a robust administrative mechanism.
Lastly, by balancing flexibility with robust protections, India can ensure that gig workers are included within the formal labour system and empowered to thrive.
[1]Gig Economy Workers’ Livelihood: A Qualitative Study of Ride-Hailing Platforms in Bangalore City, India<https://gipe.ac.in/gig-economy-workers-livelihood-a-qualitative-study-of-ride-hailing-platforms-in-bangalore-city-india/#:~:text=With%20over%2050%20per%20cent,hailing%20platforms%20is%20indeed%20strenuous.> accessed 30 December 2024.
[2] ibid
[3]Rahul Kumar and Shreya Sharma, 'Understanding Gig Work in India: Challenges and Prospects' (2024) SSRN <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4558703> accessed 30 December 2024.
[4]NITI Aayog, 'India's Booming Gig and Platform Economy: Policy Brief' (27 June 2022) <https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-06/Policy_Brief_India%27s_Booming_Gig_and_Platform_Economy_27062022.pdf> accessed 30 December 2024
[5]Centre for Labour
Laws, 'The Unsettled Status of Gig Workers in India: Towards a Comprehensive
Legal Framework' (NLIU) <https://cll.nliu.ac.in/the-unsettled-status-of-gig-workers-in-india-towards-a-comprehensive-legal-framework/>accessed 25
December 2024.
[6]Minimum Wages Act 1948.
[7]Ibid
[8]Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947
[9] Ibid
[10]Rahul Kumar and Shreya Sharma, 'Understanding Gig Work in India: Challenges and Prospects' (2024) SSRN <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4558703 >accessed 30 December 2024
[11] Ibid
[12]Fair Work India, 'Fair Work India Ratings 2022'<https://fair.work/en/ratings/india/> accessed 1 January 2025
[13] Code on Wages, 2019
[14]Ibid
[15]Social Security Code, 2020.
[16]Ibid
[17]Social Security Code, 2020.
[18]Ulka Bhattacharyya and Soumya Jha, 'Understanding Social Security for Gig Workers' (2022) NLIU Law Review<https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/3.-Understanding-Social-Security-for-Gig-Workers.pdf> accessed 1 January 2025
[19]ibid
[20]Ulka Bhattacharyya and Soumya Jha, 'Understanding Social Security for Gig Workers' (2022) NLIU Law Review<https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/3.-Understanding-Social-Security-for-Gig-Workers.pdf>accessed 1 January 2025
[21]The Rajasthan Platform-based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023<https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_states/rajasthan/2023/Act29of2023Rajasthan.pdf?utm_> accessed December 2025.
[22] ibid
[23] Ashok Sanyal, 'The Gig Is Up: Pros and Cons of the Karnataka Gig Workers Bill' Mondaq (2024) <https://www.mondaq.com/india/employee-rights-labour-relations/1510600/the-gig-is-up-pros-and-cons-of-the-karnataka-gig-workers-bill?utm_> accessed December 2025.
[24] ibid
[25]Indus Law, 'Gig Workers: Legal Analysis' (2024) <https://induslaw.com/publications/pdf/alerts-2024/gig-workers-article.pdf?utm_> accessed December 2025.
[26]IndusLaw, 'Gig Workers: Legal Analysis' (2024) <https://induslaw.com/publications/pdf/alerts-2024/gig-workers-article.pdf?utm>accessed December 2025.
[27]ibid
[28]Vajiram and Ravi, 'What Does the Karnataka Bill Promise Gig Workers: Explained?' (2024) <https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-daily-current-affairs/mains-articles/what-does-the-karnataka-bill-promise-gig-workers-explained/?> accessed December 2025.
[29]ibid
[30]Vajiram and Ravi, 'What Does the Karnataka Bill Promise Gig Workers: Explained?' (2024) <https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-daily-current-affairs/mains-articles/what-does-the-karnataka-bill-promise-gig-workers-explained/?utm_> accessed December 2025.
[31]ibid
[32]Vajiram and Ravi, 'What Does the Karnataka Bill Promise Gig Workers: Explained?' (2024) <https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-daily-current-affairs/mains-articles/what-does-the-karnataka-bill-promise-gig-workers-explained/?utm_> accessed December 2025.
[33][2021] UKSC 5, [2021] R.T.R. 29.
[34] s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
[35] ibid
[36]Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] R.T.R. 29.
[37] Ibid
[38]Autoclenz Limited v Belcher and others [2011] UKSC 41
[39] Julie McClelland, ’A Purposive Approach to Employment Protection or a Missed Opportunity?‘ (2012) 75(3) The Modern Law Review <https://www.jstor.org/stable/41682860> accessed 27 April 2024.
[40]Fabian McNeilly, ’Sham Self-Employment Contracts: Taking a Liberty?’ 2 (15) Manchester Law Review <https://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/schools/law/main/research> accessed 28 April 2024
[40]Uber BV v Aslam [2018] EWCA civ 2748
[41]Uber BV v Aslam [2018] EWCA Civ 2748
[42] Patrick Elias, “Changes and Challenges to the Contract of Employment†” (2018) 38 (4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies <https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy022> accessed 29 April 2024
[43]Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak [2007] UKEAT 0535, [2007] IRLR 560
[44] [1978] 1 WLR 676
[45][1968] 1 All ER 433
[46] Diane Coyle, Jeremias Adams-Prassl and Abigail Adams-Prassl, “Uber and Beyond: Policy Implications for the UK” [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3823829> Accessed 27 April 2024
[47][2021] UKSC 5, [2021] R.T.R. 29.
[48]Atkinson and Dhorajiwala (n 3)
[49]Cotswold Developments Construction Ltd v Williams [2006] IRLR 181
[50][1984] Q.B. 90 [1984] Q.B. 90[984] Q.B. 90[1984] Q.B. 90
[51] Ewan McGaughey, “Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent Employment Status” (2018) 48(2) Industrial Law Journal <https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwy014> accessed April 30 2024
[52] Marc T. Moore, ’Flexible Work: A Law and Economics Perspective’ (2006) University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 12/2018 <University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 12/2018>accessed 20 April 2024
[53]Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] R.T.R. 29
[54] ibid
[56] Michael Ford,' Pimlico Plumbers: Cutting the Gordian Knot of Substitution Clauses?' (UK Labour Law, 19 July 2018) <https://uklabourlawblog.com/2018/07/20/pimlico-plumbers-cutting-the-gordian-knot-of-substitution-clauses-michael-ford-qc/> accessed 20 April 2024
[57][2017] ICR 657
[56]James v Redcat (Brands) Ltd[2007] ICR 1006
[57]Ready Mixed Concrete (Southeast) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2QB497
[59] Gwyneth Pitt, ' The Simple Things You See Are All Complicated' (UK Labour Law, 2024) <https://uklabourlawblog.com/2024/01/15/the-simple-things-you-see-are-all-complicated-thoughts-on-deliveroo-by-gwyneth-pitt/> accessed 20 April 2024
[60] Ford (n 27)
[63] Joe Atkinson,’ Zero-hours contracts and English employment law: Developments and possibilities’ (2023) European Labour Law Journal 13(3)
[64]<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/20319525221104165> accessed 1 May 2024
[65]Tiago Vieira ’Platform couriers' self-exploitation: The case study of Glovo’ New Technology, Work and Employment (2023) 38(3) European University Institute<
[66] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ntwe.12272>
[67] Atkinson (n 36)
[68] Ewan McGaughey, “Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent Employment Status” (2018) 48(2) Industrial Law Journal <https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwy014> accessed April 30 2024
[69] Good Work Plan, (2018), Department for Business and Trade.
[70] Hugh Collins, ‘A Missed Opportunity of a Unified test for Employment Status’ (UK Labour Law, 31 July 2018) <https://uklabourlawblog.com/2018/07/31/a-missed-opportunity-of-a-unified-test-for-employment-status-hugh-collins/> accessed 25 April 2024
[71] Ibid
[72]Centre for Labour Laws, 'The Unsettled Status of Gig Workers in India: Towards a Comprehensive Legal Framework' (NLIU, 2024) https://cll.nliu.ac.in/the-unsettled-status-of-gig-workers-in-india-towards-a-comprehensive-legal-framework/?utm_ accessed 1 January 2025.
[73]Ibid
Bibliography
Primary sources
Autoclenz
Limited v Belcher and others [2011] UKSC 41
Code
on Wages, 2019.
Consistent
Group Ltd v Kalwak [2007] UKEAT 0535, [2007] IRLR 560
Cotswold
Developments Construction Ltd v Williams [2006] IRLR 181
Independent
Workers Union of Great Britain (Appellant) v Central Arbitration Committee and
another [2021]
EWCA Civ 952
Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
James
v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] IRLR 296
Massey
v Crown Life Insurance [1978] 1 WLR 676
Minimum
Wages Act, 1948.
O’Kelly
v Trusthouse [1984] Q.B. 90
Pimlico
Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2017] ICR 657
Ready
Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions [1968] 1 All ER 433
s.230(3)(b)
of the Employment Rights Act 1996
Social
Security Code, 2020.
The
Rajasthan Platform-based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act,
2023 https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_states/rajasthan/2023/Act29of2023Rajasthan.pdf
accessed December 2025.
Uber
BV v Aslam [2018] EWCA Civ 2748
Uber
BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] R.T.R. 29.
Secondary
sources
Atkinson
J and Dhorajiwala H, ‘The Future of Employment: Purposive Interpretation
and the Role of Contract after Uber’ (2021) 85(3) The Modern Law Review 787
<https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12693>
accessed 25 April 2024
Atkinson
J,’ Zero-hours contracts and English employment law: Developments and
possibilities’ (2023) European Labour Law Journal 13(3) <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/20319525221104165>
accessed 1 May 2024
Bhattacharyya U and Jha S, 'Understanding
Social Security for Gig Workers' (2022) NLIU Law Reviewhttps://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/3.-Understanding-Social-Security-for-Gig-Workers.pdf
accessed 1 January 2025.
Centre for Labour Laws, 'The Unsettled Status
of Gig Workers in India: Towards a Comprehensive Legal Framework' (NLIU) https://cll.nliu.ac.in/the-unsettled-status-of-gig-workers-in-india-towards-a-comprehensive-legal-framework/
accessed 25 December 2024.
Collins
H, ‘A Missed Opportunity of a Unified test for Employment Status’ (UK Labour
Law, 31 July 2018) <https://uklabourlawblog.com/2018/07/31/a-missed-opportunity-of-a-unified-test-for-employment-status-hugh-collins/>
accessed 25 April 2024
Coyle
D, Adams-Prassl J and Adams-Prassl A, “Uber and Beyond: Policy
Implications for the UK” [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3823829>
Accessed 27 April 2024
Elias
P, “Changes and Challenges to the Contract of Employment†” (2018) 38 (4) Oxford
Journal of Legal Studies <https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy022>
accessed 29 April 2024
Fair
Work India, 'Fair Work India Ratings 2022'<https://fair.work/en/ratings/india/>
accessed 1 January 2025
Ford
M,' Pimlico Plumbers: Cutting the Gordian Knot of Substitution Clauses?' (UK
Labour Law, 19 July 2018) <https://uklabourlawblog.com/2018/07/20/pimlico-plumbers-cutting-the-gordian-knot-of-substitution-clauses-michael-ford-qc/>
accessed 20 April 2024
Gig
Economy Workers’ Livelihood: A Qualitative Study of Ride-Hailing Platforms in
Bangalore City, Indiahttps://gipe.ac.in/gig-economy-workers-livelihood-a-qualitative-study-of-ride-hailing-platforms-in-bangalore-city-india/#:~:text=With%20over%2050%20per%20cent,hailing%20platforms%20is%20indeed%20strenuous. accessed 30 December 2024.
Good Work Plan, (2018), Department for Business and Trade.
Kumar
R and Sharma S, 'Understanding Gig Work in India: Challenges and Prospects'
(2024) SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4558703
accessed 30 December 2024.
McClelland
J, ’A Purposive Approach to Employment Protection or a Missed Opportunity?‘
(2012) 75(3) The Modern Law Review <https://www.jstor.org/stable/41682860>
accessed 27 April 2024.
McGaughey
E, “Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent
Employment Status” (2018) 48(2) Industrial Law Journal <https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwy014>
accessed April 30 2024
McGaughey
E, “Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent
Employment Status” (2018) 48(2) Industrial Law Journal <https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwy014>
accessed April 30 2024
McNeilly
F, ’Sham Self-Employment Contracts: Taking a Liberty?’ 2 (15) Manchester Law
Review <https://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/schools/law/main/research>
accessed 28 April 2024
Moore
M T, ’Flexible Work: A Law and Economics Perspective’ (2006) University of
Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 12/2018 <University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research
Paper No. 12/2018>
accessed 20 April 2024
NITI Aayog, 'India's Booming Gig and Platform
Economy: Policy Brief' (27 June 2022) https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-06/Policy_Brief_India%27s_Booming_Gig_and_Platform_Economy_27062022.pdf
accessed 30 December 2024.
Pitt
G, ' The Simple Things You See Are All Complicated' (UK Labour Law, 2024) <https://uklabourlawblog.com/2024/01/15/the-simple-things-you-see-are-all-complicated-thoughts-on-deliveroo-by-gwyneth-pitt/>
accessed 20 April 2024
Sanyal
A, 'The Gig Is Up: Pros and Cons of the Karnataka Gig Workers Bill' (2024) Mondaqhttps://www.mondaq.com/india/employee-rights-labour-relations/1510600/the-gig-is-up-pros-and-cons-of-the-karnataka-gig-workers-bill
accessed December 2025.
Sarvagya
Chitranshi and H A Dhruti, 'Determining the Status and Treatment of
"Gig-Workers" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947' (2024) GNLU
Law Journalhttps://doi.org/10.69974/glslawjournal.v6i2.134
accessed 30 December 2024.
Vajiram
and Ravi, 'What Does the Karnataka Bill Promise Gig Workers: Explained?' (2024)
https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-daily-current-affairs/mains-articles/what-does-the-karnataka-bill-promise-gig-workers-explained/
accessed December 2025.
Viera
T ‘Platform couriers' self-exploitation: The case study of Glovo’ New
Technology, Work and Employment (2023) 38(3) European University Institute<
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ntwe.12272>
https://www.ijllr.com/post/empowering-the-gig-worker-comparative-insights-and-pathways-for-reform
No comments:
Post a Comment