ILO Convention No. 193

Context: A major diplomatic and labor debate emerged after India abstained from voting on ILO Convention No. 193 (Decent Work in the Platform Economy) at the 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva.

About ILO Convention No. 193:

What it is?

• Adopted on June 12, 2026, ILO Convention No. 193 is the first binding international treaty establishing a universal floor of rights for platform and gig workers—including ride-hail drivers, delivery riders, pickers, and data labelers.
• The treaty establishes core protections regardless of whether a company classifies a worker as an independent partner or an employee.
• Crucially, it introduces the world’s first global standards on algorithmic management, requiring platforms to disclose automated decision-making processes, explain account deactivations in writing, and keep a human in the loop.

Key Data and Statistics on India’s Gig Workforce

• Workforce Projections: India’s gig workforce stood at ~7.7 million in 2020–21 and is projected by NITI Aayog to reach 2.35 crore (23.5 million) by 2029–30, accounting for 6.7% of the non-agricultural workforce.
• Income Distribution: About 39% of gig workers earn ₹10,000–₹25,000 per month and 34% earn ₹25,000–₹40,000 per month, usually spread across grueling 12-hour shifts with self-funded fuel and no overtime pay.
• Social Protection Deficit: Only about 15% of Indian gig workers have access to any social security, leaving 85% without accident cover, sick pay, or pensions.
• Global Scale Context: The World Bank estimates that 154 to 435 million people earn their living through digital platforms globally.

Reasons for India’s Abstention:

• Policy of Pre-Conformity: India traditionally ratifies ILO conventions only after domestic laws and administrative frameworks fully conform to international mandates.
• Unoperationalized Central Code: The Central Government relies on its own Code on Social Security, 2020 (enforced in November 2025), which mandates a 1%–2% aggregator turnover contribution, preferring internal frameworks over international treaties.
• Federalism Concerns: Labour is a Concurrent subject under the Indian Constitution, making central enforcement of binding international treaties complex across state jurisdictions.
• Reluctance over Algorithmic & Reclassification Mandates: Article 9 of Convention 193 forces states to reclassify platform workers based on real work conditions, which conflicts with India’s current flexible independent aggregator business model.

State-Level Legislative Initiatives vs. Central Framework:

Impact of Abstention on Gig Workers:

• Entrenches Classification Fictions: Allows platforms to continue treating workers as independent contractors, denying them statutory minimum wages, paid leave, or overtime pay.
• Leaves Algorithmic Management Unregulated: Workers remain exposed to arbitrary black-box account deactivations, opaque fare calculations, and automated performance tracking without human explanation.
• Denies Judicial Enforcement under International Standards: Without ratification, workers cannot leverage international treaty rights in Indian courts to challenge aggregator practices.
• Creates a Global Rights Divide: Widens the rights gap between gig workers in ratifying nations (like China, Brazil, or Germany) and those in India.

Way Forward:

• Operationalize the Code on Social Security: Immediately notify specific benefit structures, eligibility rules, and contribution collection mechanisms for the central Social Security Fund.
• Mandate Algorithmic Transparency: Introduce regulations requiring platforms to provide written explanations for account suspensions, automated pay deductions, and rating drops.
• Establish a Human-in-the-Loop Requirement: Mandate that all major platform decisions—especially account deactivations and penalizations—be subject to human review.
• Harmonize State and Central Welfare Laws: Align state welfare board models (like Rajasthan’s and Karnataka’s) with central frameworks to ensure portable social security across state borders.
• Progressive Alignment with Convention 193: Phase in core guarantees of Convention 193 into national law to prepare for eventual ratification.

Conclusion:

India’s abstention on ILO Convention No. 193 reflects a preference for domestic legislative flexibility over binding international obligations. However, as India’s gig economy expands toward 2.35 crore workers by 2030, relying on unoperationalized central rules leaves millions vulnerable to opaque algorithms and social insecurity. Bridging the gap requires operationalizing social security funds, enforcing algorithmic transparency, and protecting workers’ basic rights.