Gig Workers and Constitutional Labour Protections: The Supreme Court's Journey in IFAT v. Union of India

Case: The Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT) & Others v. Union of India & Others

Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1068 of 2021 (also cited as Diary No. 22576/2021)

Current Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan (as of latest hearings 2025) Status as of July 2026: Sub judice — still pending for final adjudication

Key Statutes: Code on Social Security, 2020 (Chapter IX); Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008; Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023

Introduction

Who works for Ola, Uber, Swiggy, and Zomato?

The platforms say: independent entrepreneurs freely choosing when to work, using the app as a tool. The workers say: they set the prices, control the algorithm, punish non-acceptance of rides, monitor our performance, and deactivate us for poor ratings. That is control. That is an employer.

This dispute, at the heart of the gig economy, has been before the Supreme Court of India since September 2021. The Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT) filed a landmark Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arguing that gig workers are workers in every meaningful sense and are entitled to constitutional and statutory protection.

While a final Supreme Court judgment has not yet been delivered, the case has already produced important interim observations and legal clarity on what gig workers are constitutionally owed. The broader legislative landscape has also moved: the Code on Social Security, 2020 recognises gig workers for the first time in Indian law, and the Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers Act, 2023 is the country's first state-level legislation on gig worker welfare.

Background: IFAT and the Gig Workers' Movement

The Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT) was founded in December 2019, brought together by drivers and delivery workers on Ola, Uber, Swiggy, and Zomato platforms across India.

The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 dramatically exposed the precariousness of gig work. These workers were on the road delivering essential services — food, medicines, groceries — while receiving no personal protective equipment, no insurance, no sick leave, and no guaranteed minimum pay. When the pandemic lockdowns froze the economy, gig workers had no safety net at all.

In June 2020, IFAT organised nationwide protests demanding PPE and revised payment structures. The companies provided minimal assistance. The inadequacy of the response galvanised the federation into legal action.

On 9 September 2021, IFAT filed a PIL in the Supreme Court. The respondents named in the petition included:

• Union of India
• ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (operating Ola)
• Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd.
• Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (operating Swiggy)
• Zomato Ltd.

What IFAT Argued: The Constitutional Case

IFAT's petition raises three constitutional questions:

First, under Article 14 (Equality): The distinction between gig workers (classified as "independent contractors") and other unorganised workers, who receive social security protections under the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, is arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no rational basis for treating gig workers as a lesser class of worker deserving no protection.

Second, under Article 21 (Right to Life): The Supreme Court has long held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood, the right to decent working conditions, and the right to human dignity. The denial of social security — health insurance, accident coverage, unemployment relief — to millions of gig workers who risk their lives on the road every day violates these rights.

Third, under Article 23 (Right Against Exploitation): Article 23 prohibits forced labour and other forms of exploitation. IFAT argued that when gig workers are paid below subsistence wages, denied collective bargaining, and controlled through opaque algorithmic systems that they cannot challenge or understand, the relationship amounts to economic exploitation that the Constitution prohibits.

Directive Principles relied upon:

• Article 39(e): The State must ensure that workers are not forced by economic necessity to enter vocations unsuited to their age or strength.
• Article 41: The right to work and the right to public assistance in cases of unemployment.
• Article 42: Provision for just and humane conditions of work.
• Article 43: Living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life.
• Article 43A: Workers' participation in management of industries.

Who Is a "Gig Worker"? The Definitional Problem

At the heart of the case is the question of classification. The gig economy thrives on a fiction: that workers who are algorithmically controlled, whose prices are set by the platform, whose performance is monitored constantly, and who can be deactivated at any time by a machine, are "independent contractors" rather than workers or employees.

This fiction has specific legal consequences. In Indian labour law, being an "employee" or "worker" triggers protections: minimum wage, provident fund, ESIC health insurance, gratuity, leave entitlements, and collective bargaining rights. Being an "independent contractor" triggers none of these.

The IFAT petition argues that this classification is economically and constitutionally false. The actual working relationship — however it is labelled in a contract — is one of economic dependence and algorithmic control. Courts in the UK (Uber BV v. Aslam, 2021, UK Supreme Court), France, the Netherlands, and Italy have all reached the same conclusion on similar facts: gig platform workers are workers, not truly independent contractors.

The Code on Social Security, 2020: A Landmark First Step

A critical development occurred even before the Supreme Court's final ruling: the Code on Social Security, 2020, which received Presidential assent on 29 September 2020.

For the first time in Indian labour law history, the Code defines gig workers and platform workers and brings them within the potential ambit of social security:

• Section 2(35): Defines a "gig worker" as a person who performs work or participates in a work arrangement and earns from such activities outside of traditional employer-employee relationships.
• Section 2(61): Defines a "platform worker" as a person engaged in or undertaking platform work.
• Chapter IX of the Code deals specifically with social security for gig workers and platform workers. It provides for social security funds and welfare schemes to be framed by the Central and State Governments.

However — and this is the critical gap — the rules and schemes required to make Chapter IX operational have not been notified as of mid-2026. The ASG appearing for the Union of India informed the Court at the 18 February 2025 hearing that the rules are "still under consideration."

This means the statutory framework exists, but its implementation is stalled. The IFAT petition is, in large part, seeking judicial intervention to push this implementation forward.

Stay updated with landmark judgments. Read Pushpa v. Dayawati (2026) to learn the Supreme Court's latest view on Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The Court's Interim Observations: What Has Been Said

While a final judgment is awaited, the Supreme Court has made significant observations at various hearings:

In a hearing in late 2024, the Court told the Centre that labour and social security rights for gig workers and app-based service providers cannot be denied if a statutory regime provides for such protections. This was a strong signal that the Court views the Code on Social Security, 2020's Chapter IX as creating a legal entitlement for gig workers, not just a policy aspiration.

The Court has been monitoring the Union of India's progress on framing the rules under Chapter IX. The matter was listed for hearing on 7 May 2026 to assess the latest position.

The Court has also heard arguments from platform companies resisting re-classification of gig workers as employees, and from the Union of India defending its approach of creating a separate social security framework rather than reclassifying gig workers.

The Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers Act, 2023: A State-Level First

Even before the Supreme Court delivers its final verdict, one State has acted. The Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023 is the first state-level legislation in India specifically protecting gig workers.

Key provisions:

• Mandatory Registration: All platform companies operating in Rajasthan must register their gig workers with the State.
• Welfare Fund: A welfare fee between 1% and 2% of each transaction is to be deposited into a Gig Workers Welfare Fund, contributed by the platforms.
• Welfare Board: A Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers Welfare Board is to administer benefits including insurance, pension, and health assistance.
• Grievance Redressal: Gig workers may file grievances against arbitrary deactivation or unfair treatment.

This legislation does not classify gig workers as "employees." It creates a sui generis third category — platform workers with specific protections — rather than fully integrating them into the employment law framework.

The Global Context: What Courts in Other Countries Have Decided

The IFAT petition invites the Supreme Court to consider the approach taken by courts in other jurisdictions:

UK Supreme Court in Uber BV v. Aslam (2021): Uber drivers were held to be "workers" (a classification between employee and independent contractor under UK law) entitled to national minimum wage, paid holiday, and other protections. The Court rejected Uber's argument that its contract terms, which called drivers "partners" and "independent contractors," determined the legal relationship. The actual, economic reality of the relationship controlled.

European Union Platform Work Directive (2022-2024 deliberations): The EU has been working on a directive that would create a legal presumption that gig workers are employees, with platforms required to rebut the presumption if they claim their workers are truly independent. This shifts the burden of proof from workers to platforms.

France: The Cour de cassation held in 2020 that Uber's relationship with its drivers constituted an employment contract.

These developments illustrate a global trend: courts and legislatures are recognising that algorithmic control is control, and that platform companies cannot escape employment obligations by relabelling their workers.

The Constitutional Principles at Stake

Regardless of the final outcome in IFAT, the constitutional principles that are being applied in this case are foundational exam material:

Article 21 and the Right to Livelihood

Since Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545, the Supreme Court has held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21. A system that denies gig workers accident insurance, health coverage, and economic security while they risk their lives on the road violates the minimum constitutional standards for a life of dignity.

Article 23 and Algorithmic Control

Article 23 prohibits begar and forced labour. The IFAT petition argues that when algorithmic systems create economic compulsion — by cutting pay, limiting work opportunities, or deactivating accounts — this amounts to a form of exploitation that Article 23 should address.

Directive Principles as Living Constitutional Mandates

The Supreme Court has increasingly held that Directive Principles are not aspirational but are active guides to constitutional interpretation. Articles 39(e), 41, 42, 43, and 43A together create a constitutional mandate for the State to ensure just working conditions and social security for all workers. Gig workers cannot be excluded from this mandate by the technicality of a contractual label.

Why This Matters for Judiciary Aspirants

It Is a Developing Area of Constitutional Law

The intersection of constitutional rights, labour law, and digital technology is one of the most important emerging areas in Indian law. The IFAT case is the Supreme Court's first opportunity to address the constitutional status of gig workers directly. Whatever the final judgment says, it will be a landmark.

It Connects Multiple Core Subjects

This case connects Articles 14, 21, and 23, the Directive Principles (Articles 39, 41, 42, 43), labour legislation (Code on Social Security 2020, Unorganised Workers Act 2008), and the emerging law of the gig economy. Aspirants who understand this case understand the entire constitutional framework for worker protections.

It Tests Current-Affairs Awareness

The IFAT case, the Code on Social Security 2020, and the Rajasthan Act 2023 are high-probability topics for current-affairs-based questions in 2026 judiciary examinations.

Conclusion

The IFAT v. Union of India case is still making its way through the Supreme Court. But the questions it raises — who counts as a worker, who deserves dignity at work, and whether constitutional rights stop at the gate of the gig economy — are already reshaping Indian labour law.

Looking for the best Judiciary Courses? Learn from experienced faculty and strengthen your preparation with structured study plans. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What is the IFAT v. Union of India case about?

The Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT) filed a PIL before the Supreme Court in September 2021, seeking social security protections and constitutional recognition for gig workers on platforms like Ola, Uber, Swiggy, and Zomato. The petition argues that the denial of social security violates Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution and that gig workers must be recognised as unorganised workers under the law.

Q2. Has the Supreme Court given a final judgment on gig workers' rights?

No. As of mid-2026, the IFAT case remains sub judice before the Supreme Court. The Court has made important interim observations, including that statutory social security rights cannot be denied to gig workers if a statutory regime provides for such protections. The case is pending final adjudication.

Q3. What does the Code on Social Security, 2020 say about gig workers?

 The Code on Social Security, 2020 defines "gig workers" under Section 2(35) and "platform workers" under Section 2(61). Chapter IX of the Code provides for social security funds and welfare schemes for gig and platform workers, to be framed by Central and State Governments. However, the rules required to operationalise Chapter IX have not yet been notified, which is the core compliance gap the IFAT petition is seeking to address.

Q4. What is the Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers Act, 2023?

 The Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023 is the first state-level legislation in India providing welfare protections specifically to gig workers. It requires mandatory registration of gig workers, mandates platforms to contribute 1-2% of each transaction to a Welfare Fund, and establishes a Welfare Board to administer benefits including insurance, pension, and health assistance.

Q5. What constitutional articles apply to the gig workers' rights debate?

 Article 14 (equality): denying gig workers protections available to other unorganised workers is arbitrary. Article 21 (right to life): includes the right to livelihood and decent working conditions (Olga Tellis, 1985). Article 23 (prohibition of forced labour): algorithmic economic compulsion may amount to exploitation. Directive Principles 39(e), 41, 42, and 43 mandate the State to ensure just working conditions, living wages, and social security for all workers.

Start your Judiciary journey with confidence. Contact Aashayein Judiciary for expert guidance and career support.