Introduction: The Rise of the Gig Economy

• India’s gig and platform economy has expanded rapidly with the rise of food delivery apps, ride-hailing platforms, and digital freelancing.

• Despite government recognition in policy documents and the Union Budget 2025, gig workers remain largely invisible in India’s primary labour data.

• The Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) — India’s chief source of employment statistics — includes gig work under broad economic activity but fails to classify it distinctly.

 Legal Definitions but Loose Classifications

a. Code on Social Security, 2020

• Defines gig work as employment outside a traditional employer-employee relationship.

• Platform work refers to digital mediation through apps or platforms in exchange for payment.

• Although legally recognised, these definitions remain too general and do not translate into statistical clarity.

b. Statistical Ambiguity

• Gig workers are clubbed under vague PLFS categories such as:

  • Self-employed

  • Own-account workers

  • Casual labour

• This classification overlooks their unique work conditions and income structures.

Consequences of Data Invisibility

a. Policy Gaps and Implementation Challenges

• Welfare schemes under the Code on Social Security (e.g., Social Security Fund, National Social Security Board) depend on PLFS data.

• Inaccurate classification leads to misidentification or exclusion of beneficiaries.

b. Access Denied

• Gig workers face uneven access to schemes such as:

  • e-Shram portal registrations

  • Ayushman Bharat health benefits

  • Social security enrolments

• Without proper data, even well-intentioned policies remain underutilised.

 How the PLFS Fails to Capture Gig Work

a. Generic Categorisation

• Gig work is included under general economic activity, but without a distinct category.

• PLFS methodology does not distinguish between:

  • Platform-mediated work vs traditional employment

  • Time-based vs task-based work

  • Algorithm-driven roles vs autonomous self-employment

b. Lack of Nuanced Questions

• PLFS does not inquire about:

  • Number of platforms used

  • Digital contracts or algorithmic control

  • Nature of task assignments

• The absence of these dimensions fails to capture hybrid work realities.

c. Mislabelled Employment

• A food delivery worker on multiple apps may be classified as “self-employed” or “casual worker,” ignoring:

  • Income volatility

  • Absence of social protections

  • Algorithmic surveillance

 Recognition Without Representation

a. Policy Progress

• The 2025 Union Budget and initiatives like:

  • e-Shram portal

  • Digital worker IDs

  • Ayushman Bharat coverage
    …demonstrate policy recognition.

b. Statistical Lag

• However, PLFS (2025) fails to update classification systems accordingly.

• Revised survey has:

  • Larger sample size

  • Better rural representation

  • Monthly estimates
    …but lacks gig-specific modules.

 What Needs to Change

a. Introduce Distinct Classification Codes

• Gig and platform work should have separate occupational categories in PLFS.

b. Add Survey Modules on Digital Labour

• Include targeted questions:

  • Are you working via an app/platform?

  • Do you have fixed work hours or tasks?

  • How many platforms do you work for?

c. Enable Evidence-Based Policy

• Better classification will:

  • Improve welfare targeting

  • Capture employment precarity

  • Reflect platform governance and worker dependency

Conclusion: Making Gig Work Count

• Gig workers are already central to India’s urban economy.

• Legal recognition and policy initiatives are steps forward, but without statistical representation, gig workers remain on the margins.

• To build inclusive and responsive labour policies, India must revise its labour data systems — starting with PLFS — to count what truly counts.