The Karnataka Cabinet, on April 11, cleared the long -awaited draft concert workers (Social Security and Welfare) based on the Karnataka platform, which is now expected to be introduced as an ordinance. If approved, this would make Karnataka the second state of the country to introduce the legislation for the well -being of the platform workers after Rajasthan.
Why legilation?
The reports suggest that there are about 2 concert workers based on Lakh platforms in Bengaluru who work with companies such as Swiggy, Zomato, Uber, Ola, Urban Company, Porter, Amazon, Flipkart, etc. An evolutionary and nascent sector, the economy of the concert is expected to believe 23.5 million jobs in India for the 2030 axis by 2022 Niti Aayog report.
Concert workers based on platforms, which are not full -time employees and are or known as “partners” by aggregators, enjoy a certain degree of work flexibility unlike work in the formal sector.
However, since employment is outside the traditional employer -employee, workers do not have the security of labor protection laws. Multiple instances of negligence and exploitation of workers have reported throughout the years that require the need for legislation to guarantee the protection and well -being of workers.
Althegh, the central government, in 2020, approved the Code on Social Security (COSS) that defined the concert workers for the first time in India, has not yet been implemented. In 2023, the Government of Congress that was in power in Rajasthan promulgated the Law of Concert Workers (Registration and Welfare) based on the Rajasthan platform, 2023 just before the state elections. The subsequent BJP government in the State left the law without implementing.
New Delhi, 09/09/2022: Blinket delivery agent on the way to deliver groceries in New Delhi on Saturday April 9, 2022. Photo: RV Mororhy/The Hindu | Photo credit: Moorthy RV
What is the timeline?
It was in June 2024 that the government led by Siddaramaiah first published the draft of the Concert Workers Law (Social Security and Welfare) based on the Karnataka platform. According to the officials, the bill was written after several meetings with several interested parties.
Although it was expected to be presented in the monsoon session, industry agencies such as Nasscom and Iamai representing several technological companies registered a strong opposition against several clauses of the bill and demanded more time to present their comments. After this, the bill was in the rear burner, to dismay the concert workers unions, which since then have pressed their legs for their passage earlier.
In the first week of April, the maximum brass of the Karnataka government with opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, with whom the bill was discussed. The legislation for concert workers was one of the promises of Congress before the general elections, as well as the state elections in Karnataka. After the meeting, Karnataka Labor Minister, Santosh Lad, confirmed that the bill had been completed and would soon be approved. On April 11, the Karnataka cabinet cleared the bill.
What are the key clauses?
The Karnataka Platform-Baseed Gig Workers Bill Define a Gort As a Person Performedos work or participates in a work package that results in a Given Rate of Payment, Based on the Ter And What-Rate Work, and Whohose-Rate Work, and What-Rate Work, and What-Rate Work, and Whohose-Rate Work, and Whohose-Rate Work, and Whohos-Rate Work, and whose rate in the schedule-I.
The bill that emphasizes the rights of concert workers aims to create a well -being fund for workers, imposes obligations on aggregators and proposes a well -being rate or 1% -5% of the payment to the duration of the worker in each transaction. The entire sum received will go to the Welfare Fund for the workers.
A Welfare Board of GIG workers will be established. The aggregators are required to provide their database of all concert workers to the Board.
The Payment and Welfare Rate Verification System (PWFVS) will track all payments made to workers and the well -being rate deduced by the aggregators.
How does the invoice help?
The platforms must provide a safe and without risk to the health of the worker and ensure that the worker has been adequate periods of rest and access to health and rest facilities.
When addressing the arbitrary termination, which has one of the main concerns of the workers, the bill indicates that no worker can be completed without the reason for a valid writer and the previous notification of 14 days, except in which they have caused bodily damage.
The bill also requires platforms to be in transparent and fair contracts with workers and stress the need for transparency with respect to the automated monitoring and decision -making system.
It proposes a two -level complaint repair mechanism in which the worker must first approach the internal dispute resolution committee. If the committee does not provide a “action tasks report” in 14 days or the worker is not satisfied, the complaint will be sent to the Board.
Bengaluru Karnataka 12/14/2022: Concert workers employed by food delivery service platforms Zomato and Swiggy, on their way to deliver food to the client at home, in Jalahalli Cross, in Bengaluru K /Tototo K /Tototo | Photo – 2022. Photo – 2022. Photo credit: Murali Kumar K
What were the objections?
After the publication of the bill in 2024, industry agencies, the Department of Electronics, IT-BT and Science and Technology, and the Department of Commerce and Industries had raised several objections.
The key concerns included how the bill defined the “concert worker”, the welfare rate per transaction, the duplicate obligations for aggregators once COSS 2020 is implemented, clarity on how the well -being fund is used, the aggrieve repair mechanism for the mechanism for the repair of the Fortales Fortales of Fortales.
While Coss 2020 defined a Gig Wormer as a person who works or participates in a work agreement and wins such activities outside the traditional employer-employed relationships, Karnataka’s bill made traditional mention screens. Therefore, the bill was required to align its definition of concert worker with that of COSS instead of creating a parallel system that equals concert workers with full -time employees.
What were the reasons for the objections?
A note from the IT-BT department argued that the transaction welfare rate was not adequate for all business models. It will be so that the rate must be 1-2% of a specific turnover of the platform status or 5% or the payment of concert workers, which is lower. To avoid duplicate obligations for platforms to contribute to state and central funds, it also demanded a sunset clause or a transition mechanism that address this problem once COSS was implemented.
The previous version of the bill proposes a grievance repair mechanism under the Industrial Dispute Law. This was strongly opposed that the law was applicable only to workers covered by conventional labor laws.
Clarity was sought on the use of the Welfare Fund, and objections were raised to the Central Transaction Information and Management System (CTimes), citing the compliance load for platform companies. The demand for the platform bill to unucked its algorithmic decision -making process was also opposed, arguing that anonymous nature was its competitive advantage.
There were also objections regarding the 14 -day notification period for workers before the termination.
The Department of Commerce and Industries argued that the broad rangers of the state government that allow interfering with the algorithms, contracts and daily management of the platforms were against the spirit of ease of doing business.
What were the changes made?
After the objections, some amendments were made to the bill.
The complaint repair mechanism was eliminated from the scope of the Industrial Dispute Law, and criminalization was ruled out by non -compliance. Although the bill retained the 14 -day notification period, a provision was added that it was not required in situations in which bodily damage was caused.
The bill gave more clarity with respect to the well -being rate compared to the initial draft of what was ambiguous with respect to deductions.
In his response to the objections made, the Labor Department said that the rules would be framed separately for the platforms, taking into account the specific commercial models of the sector and without disturbing financial sustainability, cross subsidization and the creation of employment in in in in in in in.
He also noted that a sunset clause was introduced to the bill and platforms do not need to contribute to COSS if they are already contributing under the state law.
Regarding the objection to Cims, the department argued that aggregators are already tracking and badly operating the data at the individual level. Cims changed to the Welfare Rate Verification System (WFV), which only requires integration with the API and without additional compliance, he said.
The bill adhered to its definition of ‘concert worker’ pointing out that he assumed the employer-employer relationship only at the point of providing minimum basic social security benefits and clarified that traditional labor laws do not apply to the sector.
“Allyhouug There is flexibility for work for workers, platforms enter into contracts, define their payments, assign and control the work and, in some cases, provide benefits and insurance. Therefore, the relationship of Ethe Mlosple-Employee exists to an exterct. The invoices in the Billsh Explicit “, it is not the response of Billips Billips.
Published – April 16, 2025 06:33 am ist