Why Gig Workers Are Protesting 10-Minute Deliveries — and What It Means for India’s Labour Laws

On December 31, over one lakh gig and platform workers across India went on strike, demanding the immediate withdrawal of 10–20 minute delivery models that, they argue, endanger worker safety and livelihoods. In a memorandum submitted to Union Labour Minister “Mansukh Mandaviya”, unions questioned whether India’s labour framework — particularly the new Labour Codes — is equipped to deal with the realities of the platform economy. A recent conversation between Kamal Karanth and Prashant Kamal highlights the deeper fault lines beneath the headline issue of ultra-fast deliveries.

Why 10-minute delivery has become the flashpoint

The current protest is framed around speed, but worker representatives argue that the real issue lies deeper than delivery timelines. Ultra-fast delivery, pioneered by companies like “Zepto” and rapidly adopted by competitors, is not driven by consumer necessity but by inter-platform competition.

For workers, the difference between a 10-minute and a 30-minute promise is not marginal — it directly affects road safety, stress levels, and income stability. Speed, as Prashant Kamal points out, is not generated by technology alone but extracted from human labour operating under algorithmic pressure, unstable pay structures, and the constant threat of sudden deactivation.

The hidden economics of quick commerce

Quick commerce platforms protect certain costs — technology infrastructure, marketing budgets, and investor expectations — as non-negotiable. Labour, however, becomes the adjustable variable. Workers argue that the real cost of instant convenience is borne by delivery partners through longer hours, risky riding behaviour, and unpredictable earnings.

This economic design raises a fundamental question: if platforms control pricing, task allocation, ratings, and penalties, can they continue to claim they are merely technology intermediaries rather than employers with obligations?

Is gig work filling India’s employment gap?

From the industry’s perspective, quick commerce has emerged as a crucial job generator in a labour market struggling to absorb new entrants. Kamal Karanth notes that India adds nearly 20 million people to its workforce annually but creates barely two million formal jobs each year.

Quick commerce, growing at nearly 28% annually, offers low-skill, immediate employment at scale — something manufacturing and traditional sectors have failed to do quickly. The uncomfortable policy question, therefore, is whether some form of work, even if insecure, is better than no work at all.

The regulatory dilemma: flexibility versus protection

Globally, India’s labour laws have historically focused on protecting full-time employees. Gig work, being a relatively new phenomenon, fell outside this framework for years. While regulators are now acknowledging the need for worker protection, there is concern that treating gig work exactly like full-time employment could undermine the flexibility that platforms rely on.

Industry voices argue for a middle path — limited but meaningful protections without converting gig workers into permanent employees, which they fear could shrink opportunities rather than expand them.

Why workers say Labour Codes fall short

Worker groups strongly contest the government’s claim that the new Labour Codes adequately address gig workers’ concerns. While the Codes allow for welfare schemes such as accident insurance and maternity benefits, they do not make these entitlements enforceable rights.

Gig workers are excluded from employee status, denying them access to minimum wages, regulated working hours, paid leave, overtime, and collective bargaining. Funding mechanisms remain vague, and registration on platforms like e-SHRAM has yet to translate into tangible social security benefits such as pensions or healthcare coverage.

The algorithm problem at the heart of gig work

A central grievance is the lack of transparency in algorithmic management. Platforms decide who gets work, how incentives are calculated, and when workers are penalised or deactivated — often without explanation or appeal.

According to worker representatives, these “black box” systems create income instability and psychological stress. The Labour Codes, critics argue, are silent on algorithmic accountability, grievance redressal, and due process — leaving workers vulnerable to automated decisions that directly affect their livelihoods.

AI, automation, and a more precarious future

Looking ahead, both sides agree that artificial intelligence will reshape the gig economy — but they diverge on what that means. Industry representatives believe platform-based work will not be disrupted in the short term and argue for protecting a fast-growing sector that generates employment quickly.

Workers, however, warn of a darker future. As AI deepens algorithmic control, decisions about work allocation and deactivation could become faster, more opaque, and harder to challenge. Without regulatory safeguards, gig workers may find themselves just one software update away from losing their income.

What lies ahead for policy and platforms

With “NITI Aayog” estimating that 23.5 million workers could join the gig economy by 2029–30, the stakes are high. The debate is no longer about convenience versus safety alone, but about how India balances employment generation with dignity, predictability, and basic protections in a platform-driven economy.

The question policymakers now face is whether India will treat gig work as a temporary stopgap — or recognise it as a long-term feature of the labour market that demands clearer rights, responsibilities, and accountability.