ILO'S Convention For Platform Workers: Analysing India's Abstention And Its Implications
In a recent landmark move, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopted, on June 12, 2026, the Convention concerning decent work in the platform economy (C No.193), the first of its kind to protect gig workers. The Convention establishes binding minimum-wage, occupational safety, and social-security standards for digital platform workers and was adopted by a recorded vote of 406 delegates in favour, 8 against, and 36 abstentions.[1]
However, in a move consistent with India's historical approach to contested ILO conventions, India's government delegate abstained from voting on the convention. What makes this abstention particularly difficult to justify is that India's own social partners did not share the Government's reticence. India's workers' and employers' delegates both voted in favour, leaving the Government isolated even within its own tripartite delegation.
WHY IS THE CONVENTION A MILESTONE?
The World Bank estimates that the gig workforce comprises more than 435 million people and accounts for up to 12% of the global labour force.[2] The Convention addresses the rights of this rapidly growing sector, which has, until now, operated in a regulatory grey zone. It represents a tripartite compromise between governments, employers, and workers, after years of negotiations, and finally ends the “invisibility” of platform labour. In essence, the Convention establishes a broad scope. It is applied to all digital labour platforms and all digital platform workers.
Among the most revolutionary aspects of the Convention is the importance placed on the proper categorisation of workers. Member states must ensure that the existence of an employment relationship is determined by the facts relating to the performance of the work and payment, taking into account the particularities of platform-based work.[3] This “primacy of facts” principle directly contradicts the prevalent practice of platforms categorising workers as independent contractors to limit liability.
In addition, the Convention establishes fundamental rights at work, including freedom of association, non-discrimination, and collective bargaining. It also increases protection for workers by requiring measures such as promoting occupational safety and health, protecting workers from violence and harassment, ensuring prompt and complete payment of remuneration in accordance with relevant laws, and protecting data, among others. Thus, C No.193 is a landmark not only for filling a regulatory void but also for establishing a new baseline to ensure dignity and fairness for digital platform workers.
WHAT DOES INDIA'S ABSTENTION SIGNIFY?
India is home to one of the largest gig workforces in the world, with NITI Aayog estimates showing that it will expand from 7.7 million workers in 2020-21 to 2.35 crore (23.5 million) workers by 2029-30.[4] Despite this large number, India lacks a comprehensive framework for protecting gig workers, leaving them outside the ambit of conventional labour law.
While the Social Security Code of 2020 was seen as a positive step for the social welfare of platform workers, it continues to remain insufficient for addressing the practical issues faced daily by gig workers. The Code defines gig workers and platform workers as two distinct categories[5] but does not classify them as employees. This demarcation preserves flexibility for platforms and prevents gig workers from gaining fundamental employment rights.[6] Moreover, the Code does not contain any thresholds even close to C No.193's primacy-of-facts test, which prevents platforms from mislabelling the relationship.
Against this backdrop, India should naturally have voted in favour of the ILO Convention, as it would have implemented a secure legal framework for platform workers in India as well. However, India's abstention without an official statement on the reasons is a disappointing move, especially when workers are suffering in this legal void and protesting for their rights. Not to forget that earlier this year, thousands of workers took part in a nationwide strike, with the Gig and Platform Service Workers Union leading protests across Delhi, Bengaluru, Jaipur, Mumbai, and dozens of districts, to raise concerns about their pay and working conditions. Despite all the chaos, the Indian government's abstention from such a critical treaty only signals its reluctance to express disapproval of the framework.
It is also critical to note that while India's Government delegate, Mr Pednekar, abstained, India's employers' delegate, Mr Shriram, and workers' delegate, Mr Bojji, both voted in favour of the resolution.[7] This further shows the stakeholders' desire for regulatory shift and the willingness of both workers and employers to accept change in this tripartite discussion. This divergence leaves the Government of India's position isolated even within its own delegation.
Some possible reasons for the government's stance on the convention could be its effects on business opportunities and job creation through digital platforms. However, mere speculation cannot guide us towards a secure gig economy, and the government must justify its stance, especially given the consequential implications of this abstention.
CONSEQUENCES OF ABSTENTION
Currently, abstaining from the Convention means India won't ratify this treaty, and it won't aim to fill the regulatory gap anytime soon. This means that gig workers across the nation will continue to be devoid of any legally enforceable, universal standards for minimum wage, transparency, and the right to organise into unions. The absence of these universal standards means that platform companies can continue to classify workers as “independent contractors” and exploit them.
Further, this may have an indirect bearing on India's position in multilateral organisations, especially regarding topics related to sustainable development and South-South cooperation. As several Global South nations, such as Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, supported the resolution, it may have implications for negotiations on trade pacts, G20 labour initiatives, and even bilateral cooperation, where labour standards are increasingly part of market access.
None of these issues makes abstention directly fatal, but they do raise the cost of delay. Abstention from the Convention is not irrevocable, and India can become a party to it at any time it deems necessary. The true challenge, though, will be whether national laws can evolve to reflect the ethos of C No. 193 through clear guidelines on classification, compulsory social security payments by platforms, workers' data rights, and efficient redressal mechanisms for gig workers. Failure to overcome these challenges will only deepen inequality in the future of work, while proactive alignment with these policies could strengthen India's commitment to inclusive growth.
OTHER COUNTRIES THAT ABSTAINED OR VOTED AGAINST
Apart from India, the adoption vote at the 114th International Labour Conference saw delegates from 25 other countries abstain, and 6 others vote against.
The most prominent opponents of the regulation were the US and New Zealand, whose government delegates voted against as a bloc. The opposition from the US government delegate reflects the US government's long-standing selective stance towards ILO Conventions, driven by potential conflicts with American federalism, labour-market flexibility, and sovereignty concerns.
Moreover, platform companies in the US seem to prefer hiring workers as independent contractors, and new international regulations may impose additional costs or even lead to legal disputes. New Zealand appears to have had similar concerns about the Convention's rigidity in an evolving digital economy, though notably, only New Zealand's government delegates voted against the convention while its workers' delegates voted in favour.
The remaining negative votes, however, came not from governments but from individual delegates dissenting against their own country's official position. The employers' delegates from Mauritius, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand voted against, even as their governments and workers' delegates supported the Convention. At the same time, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it was the workers' delegate who broke from a government and employers' delegation that voted in favour.
Another noteworthy abstention, alongside India's, was the UK's. But this might have been due to the UK's emphasis on labour market flexibility, especially post-Brexit.
On the other hand, powerful backing was provided by nations such as China, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, whose government, employer, and worker delegates voted in favour without exception. Germany and France also backed the Convention at the government and worker levels. However, in both cases, the employers' delegates abstained rather than supporting. Taken together, this shows that the Convention was broadly supported and therefore the few abstentions were based on sector-specific concerns arising from various jurisdictions.
For India, the lesson of this wider picture cuts both ways. On one hand, the abstention places India in the company of a modest, sceptical bloc rather than isolating it entirely. On the other hand, it is difficult to locate India's position within any principled camp. The Government did not, as the US and New Zealand did, articulate a reasoned objection to the Convention's substance, nor did it have the backing of its own workers' and employers' delegates, both of whom voted for adoption. The abstention, then, looks less like a considered judgment on the merits of C No.193 and more like an absence of one, and it is precisely this absence of reasoning, more than the vote itself, that India's gig workforce is entitled to have addressed.
International Labour Organisation, 'Results of the Vote on the Adoption of the Decent Work in the Platform Economy Convention, 2026' (114th Session of the International Labour Conference, Geneva, 12 June 2026)
World Bank, Working Without Borders: The Promise and Peril of Online Gig Work (World Bank 2023). ↑
Convention concerning Decent Work in the Platform Economy, adopted 12 June 2026, ILO Convention No. 193, art 9. ↑
NITI Aayog, India's Booming Gig and Platform Economy (Policy Brief, 2022). ↑
Code on Social Security 2020 (India), ss 2(35), 2(61). ↑
'Social Security Code, 2020: What It Means for Gig and Platform Workers' (ILMS Academy). ↑
International Labour Organisation (n 1). ↑
Author Shivendu Jaiman is a Consultant at a mediation training and services firm and Archita Garg, Student at Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.