In a significant December 2025 judgement, the Karnataka High Court held that certain categories of gig workers — particularly those doing repeated delivery and transport work with structured timings, customer ratings and algorithmic task allocation — cannot be treated as “independent contractors” for basic Occupational Safety & Health (OSH) compliance. The decision arose from a writ petition by a worker who suffered injury in a delivery-related road accident, alleging the platform failed to provide safety gear or insurance. The court examined app practices and found that algorithmic task assignment, mandatory app check-ins and performance penalties created a sufficiently controlled relationship akin to an employer-worker nexus for OSH duties. It ordered aggregators to provide helmets, reflective gear, basic first-aid kits and documented fatigue breaks for structured shifts. The platform is expected to appeal in the Supreme Court, but the HC’s reasoning is already shaping compliance debate across states. ( https://www.livelaw.in/newsupdates/karnataka-high-court-gig-workers-not-independent-contractors-for-safety-claims-313222 )
For many gig workers, this ruling resonates beyond the legal text into daily lived reality. Delivery riders and app-based couriers, who make up a large proportion of gig labourers in Bengaluru, Mysuru and Mangaluru, spoke emotionally about the difference between “optional gigs” and days when the app keeps ringing with tasks they dare not refuse if they hope to make a living. Riders shared screenshots of routes assigned without rest windows and days when they covered 150–180 km under time pressure, knowing that a single “late” tagged against their account could slash earnings. A reflective helmet, they said, was more than PPE: it symbolised recognition that their work involves real physical risk, not abstract “platform partnership.” HR professionals and compliance heads in platforms are watching the discourse closely, as the emotional thread among workers — fear, exhaustion, and a longing for mutual respect — is now being echoed in public, not just private chat groups.
From a compliance leadership standpoint, the Karnataka HC decision presents both immediate obligations and strategic uncertainties. While gig platforms traditionally relied on “partner” narratives to deny employer-style duties, this judgement suggests that courts will examine functional control — schedules, penalties, performance rules — rather than contractual labels when determining OSH applicability. For HR and legal teams in aggregators, this means documenting risk assessments, safety equipment policies, documented rest periods, and injury insurance coverage, even if classification disputes persist. Platforms should urgently map worker journeys: hours logged, tasks accepted/rejected, break schedules and fatigue indicators, and then overlay OSH requirements like emergency training, first-aid readiness, and incident escalation chains. Leadership needs to navigate a hybrid world where gig work is flexible yet regulated for basic life-and-limb safeguards. The risk of ignoring this trend is not just legal liability but brand erosion among the very workforce that keeps operations running.
If you were advising a gig platform today, how would you balance flexibility with legally grounded safety obligations?
What kinds of documented rest and risk-mitigation practices would genuinely protect riders without undermining the gig model?
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
7For many gig workers, this ruling resonates beyond the legal text into daily lived reality. Delivery riders and app-based couriers, who make up a large proportion of gig labourers in Bengaluru, Mysuru and Mangaluru, spoke emotionally about the difference between “optional gigs” and days when the app keeps ringing with tasks they dare not refuse if they hope to make a living. Riders shared screenshots of routes assigned without rest windows and days when they covered 150–180 km under time pressure, knowing that a single “late” tagged against their account could slash earnings. A reflective helmet, they said, was more than PPE: it symbolised recognition that their work involves real physical risk, not abstract “platform partnership.” HR professionals and compliance heads in platforms are watching the discourse closely, as the emotional thread among workers — fear, exhaustion, and a longing for mutual respect — is now being echoed in public, not just private chat groups.
From a compliance leadership standpoint, the Karnataka HC decision presents both immediate obligations and strategic uncertainties. While gig platforms traditionally relied on “partner” narratives to deny employer-style duties, this judgement suggests that courts will examine functional control — schedules, penalties, performance rules — rather than contractual labels when determining OSH applicability. For HR and legal teams in aggregators, this means documenting risk assessments, safety equipment policies, documented rest periods, and injury insurance coverage, even if classification disputes persist. Platforms should urgently map worker journeys: hours logged, tasks accepted/rejected, break schedules and fatigue indicators, and then overlay OSH requirements like emergency training, first-aid readiness, and incident escalation chains. Leadership needs to navigate a hybrid world where gig work is flexible yet regulated for basic life-and-limb safeguards. The risk of ignoring this trend is not just legal liability but brand erosion among the very workforce that keeps operations running.
If you were advising a gig platform today, how would you balance flexibility with legally grounded safety obligations?
What kinds of documented rest and risk-mitigation practices would genuinely protect riders without undermining the gig model?
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Karnataka High Court's ruling has indeed brought the gig economy under the spotlight, raising pertinent questions about the balance between flexibility and safety obligations.
Firstly, it's essential to understand that while gig work offers flexibility, it should not compromise on the safety and well-being of the workers. The core issue here is the classification of gig workers as 'independent contractors', which traditionally absolves platforms from certain employer responsibilities. However, the court's ruling emphasizes the need to look beyond contractual labels and consider the functional control exerted by platforms.
Legally, this ruling suggests a shift towards recognizing gig workers as 'employees' for the purpose of OSH compliance. This means platforms may be required to provide safety gear, insurance, and ensure proper rest periods, among other things. It's crucial to keep abreast of evolving labor laws and court rulings in this regard.
As for balancing flexibility with safety obligations, a few practical steps can be taken. Firstly, platforms should conduct thorough risk assessments and implement safety equipment policies. This could include providing helmets, reflective gear, and basic first-aid kits. Secondly, platforms should document rest periods and ensure that workers are not overworked. This could involve setting a maximum limit on the number of hours or tasks a worker can undertake in a day.
Risk-mitigation practices could include providing insurance coverage for workers and setting up a robust incident response system. Platforms should also consider providing training on emergency procedures and first-aid.
Finally, it's important to remember that ignoring these obligations could lead to legal liability and damage to the platform's reputation. Therefore, it's in the best interest of platforms to proactively address these issues and ensure the safety and well-being of their workers.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Firstly, it's essential to understand that while gig work offers flexibility, it should not compromise on the safety and well-being of the workers. The core issue here is the classification of gig workers as 'independent contractors', which traditionally absolves platforms from certain employer responsibilities. However, the court's ruling emphasizes the need to look beyond contractual labels and consider the functional control exerted by platforms.
Legally, this ruling suggests a shift towards recognizing gig workers as 'employees' for the purpose of OSH compliance. This means platforms may be required to provide safety gear, insurance, and ensure proper rest periods, among other things. It's crucial to keep abreast of evolving labor laws and court rulings in this regard.
As for balancing flexibility with safety obligations, a few practical steps can be taken. Firstly, platforms should conduct thorough risk assessments and implement safety equipment policies. This could include providing helmets, reflective gear, and basic first-aid kits. Secondly, platforms should document rest periods and ensure that workers are not overworked. This could involve setting a maximum limit on the number of hours or tasks a worker can undertake in a day.
Risk-mitigation practices could include providing insurance coverage for workers and setting up a robust incident response system. Platforms should also consider providing training on emergency procedures and first-aid.
Finally, it's important to remember that ignoring these obligations could lead to legal liability and damage to the platform's reputation. Therefore, it's in the best interest of platforms to proactively address these issues and ensure the safety and well-being of their workers.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Occupational Safety, Health & Working Conditions Code 2019.pdf