ILO Convention 193 on Gig Work and Why India Abstention Matters for Platform Workers

On 12 June 2026, the International Labour Organization adopted a new treaty on work in the platform economy — Convention No. 193, the first international labour standard devoted entirely to gig and platform work. The vote was 406 in favour, 8 against, and 36 abstentions. India's position drew particular attention: the government's delegate abstained, while India's employer and worker delegates both voted in favour. For a country with roughly 12 million gig workers, that split vote is more than diplomatic trivia — it signals where India's own gig-work rules stand, and where they may be heading.

The Short Answer

Convention 193 sets global minimum standards for decent work in the platform economy: it says a worker's employment status should be determined mainly by the circumstances of their work rather than the label on their contract, requires timely payment, applies minimum-wage and expense provisions directly to those in an employment relationship, and requires platforms to explain how significant automated decisions are made, with human review available. Ratification is voluntary — no country is forced to adopt it — so the Convention does not change Indian law by itself. But India's abstention, against the votes of its own employer and worker delegates, has become a focal point in the debate over whether Indian law protects platform workers well enough, and it puts pressure on the domestic reform process already under way through the Code on Social Security, 2020 and new state laws.

What Convention 193 Actually Says

The Convention is the first international labour standard written specifically for the platform economy — the world of ride-hailing drivers, food-delivery riders, freelance task workers and online service providers who find work through apps and platforms. Its core ideas are straightforward, and each one addresses a well-known gig-work grievance:

• Status follows reality, not labels. Whether someone counts as an employee should be determined mainly by the circumstances of their work — who controls the hours, the pay, the route, the rating — not by what the contract calls them. This matters because many platforms classify workers as independent contractors even while exercising tight control over how they work.
• Pay on time. The Convention requires timely payment of workers, addressing a chronic complaint in platform work where earnings can be held, adjusted or delayed by opaque processes.
• Minimum wage and expenses for employees. Minimum-wage and expense provisions apply directly to platform workers who are in an employment relationship — so a worker who is effectively employed cannot be left below the wage floor simply because the work is mediated by an app.
• Transparency of automated decisions. Workers must be told how significant automated decisions about them are made — the algorithm that assigns orders, sets pay, suspends accounts or deactivates profiles — and human review must be available. For workers who have lost accounts to an unexplained automated decision, this is one of the most consequential provisions in the treaty.

None of this is self-executing in India. An ILO convention binds a country only once that country ratifies it and brings its own laws into line. The Convention's immediate power is as a benchmark: it states, in internationally agreed language, what decent platform work looks like, and every country's system will now be measured against it.

Why India's Vote Split Three Ways

At the International Labour Conference, each member state sends a tripartite delegation: government, employers and workers, who vote independently. In the Convention 193 vote, India's government delegate abstained, while India's employer and worker delegates voted in favour. That combination — government caution alongside employer and worker support — is unusual enough to have been widely noted in Indian commentary, including analysis by PolicyCircle in September 2026 and LiveLaw.

An abstention is not a rejection. Governments abstain for many reasons, including a desire to study a treaty's fit with domestic law before committing. But the optics matter: when the employer and worker sides of your own delegation both support a standard and the government does not, the question becomes unavoidable — what in India's current framework would make ratification difficult? The answer, as Indian commentators have pointed out, lies in the gaps between what the Convention requires and what Indian law currently guarantees platform workers.

How Big Is India's Gig Workforce?

The scale of the issue is large and growing. According to the Economic Survey 2025-26, India's gig workforce grew from 7.7 million in FY2021 to about 12 million in FY2025 — more than 2 percent of total employment. NITI Aayog has projected 23.5 million gig workers by 2029-30, or 6.7 percent of non-agricultural employment. A longer-range projection from the V.V. Giri National Labour Institute puts the figure at 61.6 million by 2047 — but that should be read as a long-range indication of the direction of travel, not as a forecast to plan around.

Even on the conservative, officially reported figures, this is a workforce larger than many countries' entire populations, and it is concentrated in exactly the sectors — transport, delivery, domestic and personal services — where platform control over daily work is tightest. Whether these workers are "employees" or "partners" is not an academic question for them; it determines access to minimum wages, social security, accident cover and a route to challenge unfair deactivation.

What Indian Law Says Today

India is not starting from zero. The Code on Social Security, 2020 created legal definitions for gig workers and platform workers, and its relevant provisions came into force in November 2025 — a genuine milestone, since it formally recognised a category of worker that earlier labour law barely acknowledged. But recognition is not the same as protection: the Code's framework for gig-worker welfare still depends heavily on schemes and rules that are being built out, and it does not by itself deliver the Convention's guarantees on status determination, timely payment or algorithmic transparency.

The states have moved faster in places. Rajasthan enacted gig-worker legislation in 2023, and Karnataka and Bihar followed in 2025, with Jharkhand and Telangana also moving. The details vary: Karnataka, Telangana, Bihar and Jharkhand require varying degrees of disclosure about automated systems, and Jharkhand provides for minimum remuneration linked to time and distance. That variation is itself a problem for workers and platforms alike — a driver crossing a state border can move between different legal regimes in a single day's work. A national framework aligned with the Convention would replace that patchwork with one standard.

What This Means for Small Businesses

Small businesses are not bystanders in this debate; many of them hire through platforms — delivery riders for a restaurant, drivers for a local logistics firm, freelancers for design and content work. Three practical takeaways follow:

1. Expect the rules to tighten, not loosen. The direction of travel — Convention 193, state laws, the Code on Social Security — is toward more transparency and more protection. Building fair practices now (clear pay terms, prompt payment, a human contact for disputes) is cheaper than retrofitting them under a deadline later.
2. Algorithmic decisions will face scrutiny. If your business uses a platform that rates, ranks or deactivates workers automatically, expect questions about how those decisions are made. Keeping records of why a worker was removed or downgraded is basic risk management.
3. Worker welfare is becoming a brand issue. Customers increasingly notice how delivery and service workers are treated. Businesses that can show fair, transparent terms have a genuine advantage over competitors that cannot.

The Convention also connects to the broader AI-regulation story. The same questions about automated decision-making appear in the European Union's AI rules, covered in our article on EU AI Act fines now being live. And the skills story runs in parallel: our piece on OpenAI training 1.7 crore government employees in AI shows how quickly AI capability is spreading through the Indian workforce — including the platform workforce.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Convention 193 automatically change Indian law?

No. ILO conventions bind a country only after that country ratifies them and aligns its domestic law. India's abstention means it has not committed to ratification, so Indian law is unchanged by the Convention itself. Its influence is as a benchmark and as pressure on domestic reform.

Why did India abstain if its employer and worker delegates voted in favour?

ILO delegations vote tripartitely and independently. The government's abstention, set against employer and worker support, has been widely read as caution about the Convention's fit with India's current legal framework — particularly on employment status and algorithmic transparency — rather than opposition to gig-worker protection in principle.

How many gig workers does India have?

According to the Economic Survey 2025-26, about 12 million in FY2025, up from 7.7 million in FY2021 — more than 2 percent of total employment. NITI Aayog projects 23.5 million by 2029-30. A V.V. Giri Institute figure of 61.6 million by 2047 is a long-range indication, not a firm forecast.

What protection do Indian gig workers have right now?

The Code on Social Security, 2020 recognises gig and platform workers, with relevant provisions in force since November 2025. Rajasthan (2023), Karnataka and Bihar (2025) have state laws, with Jharkhand and Telangana following; some require disclosure of automated systems, and Jharkhand links minimum remuneration to time and distance. Coverage remains patchy compared with the Convention's standards.

Sources

• PolicyCircle (Kaushiki Sanyal) — "ILO gig-work convention exposes gaps in India's labour laws" (published 4 September 2026, updated 5 September 2026) — https://www.policycircle.org/opinion/ilo-gig-work-convention/
• LiveLaw — "ILO's Convention For Platform Workers: Analysing India's Abstention And Its Implications" — https://www.livelaw.in/articles/ilo-convention-platform-workers-analysing-india-abstention-implications-541178

Whether you hire through platforms or run your own team, a professional online presence builds trust with workers and customers alike. Ready Multi Service helps Indian small businesses establish that presence with professional websites and digital services.