iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
IndiaTech has asked the Union labour ministry to calculate aggregators’ gig-worker social-security contributions using worker payouts or individual transactions rather than annual turnover. The proposal, submitted on 29 September 2026 and reported by Mint on 4 October, is an industry recommendation—not an announced change to the rules. The ministry had not responded to Mint by publication.
What IndiaTech is asking the government to change
IndiaTech, an association representing new-age startups including Ola, Swiggy, Zomato and Porter, wants the contribution base to reflect work performed rather than accounting turnover. Its white paper proposes a percentage of the amount paid or payable to gig and platform workers, or a measure based on each transaction, with sector-specific upper caps. These are alternatives in a proposal, not a formula that has been adopted.
The association also argues that the law’s aggregator framing should be updated to account for newer business models, including platforms, principal service providers and subscription services. The proposal would require changes to the Code on Social Security, 2020; Mint reported no ministry response by 4 October 2026.
Recommended Free Tools
How the reported turnover-linked formula works
A 2025 Press Information Bureau backgrounder describes the Code’s aggregator contribution as 1–2% of annual turnover, subject to a ceiling of 5% of the amount paid or payable to gig and platform workers. The 5% figure is a cap on the turnover-linked contribution, not an extra levy added on top.
#1 Best Overall
In simplified terms, a turnover-based calculation starts with the applicable percentage of annual turnover, then cannot exceed 5% of the relevant worker payments. The precise assessment for a particular aggregator depends on the governing rules and its facts; the reporting cited here does not establish company-specific assessments.
Why IndiaTech says turnover can produce unequal results
The central issue is that businesses may recognize very different amounts as turnover for similar transactions. Mint’s 4 October 2026 report illustrates the distinction with a ₹100 service: an agent-style platform that retains a ₹20 commission may record ₹20 as revenue, while a principal or inventory-led business may record the full ₹100 transaction value. Applying the same turnover percentage to those unlike bases can create different contributions even where workers perform comparable activity.
IndiaTech’s chief operating officer, Dhiraj Gyani, argued that accounting turnover can be disconnected from labour use and said the variation in how turnover is defined creates “structural inequities.” That is the association’s case for changing the base, not a government finding that every company in a named sector follows one particular accounting treatment.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsA Mint opinion published in 2026 used fiscal 2023–24 disclosures to illustrate how widely a 1% turnover levy could differ per worker. Its estimates assume average monthly worker earnings of around ₹27,000 and are author calculations, not official assessments of individual contributions.
Rank #3
| Illustrative business | Turnover and worker count used | Estimated contribution per worker per month at 1% |
|---|---|---|
| Ride-hailing | ₹807 crore turnover; about 650,000 active workers | Roughly ₹10 |
| Food delivery | ₹6,361 crore turnover; about 200,000 workers | Roughly ₹265 |
| Home services | ₹738 crore revenue; 50,000 workers | Roughly ₹123 |
| Quick commerce | ₹2,310 crore revenue; 134,000 workers | Roughly ₹143 |
These examples show the possible effect of using revenue divided across different worker counts; they do not prove what any platform actually owes. They also do not account for the reported 5% ceiling on worker payments, which could constrain the turnover-based amount.
What a payout- or transaction-linked base could change
A contribution based on worker payments would track labour spending more directly than accounting turnover. A per-transaction measure could instead attach a contribution to each piece of platform-mediated work. Either approach could reduce the influence of whether a company records commission or gross transaction value as revenue.
Rank #4
Neither alternative automatically makes contributions equal or simple to administer. Worker payouts, commissions, transaction values and work frequency vary between platforms and sectors. A percentage of payouts could also produce different liabilities when workers are paid differently, while a transaction charge would need a clear definition of a chargeable transaction and a way to address variations in ticket size and work intensity.
Why worker representatives and analysts raise different concerns
Worker representatives caution that a uniform contribution formula should not assume platforms pay workers alike. Shaik Salauddin, co-founder and national general secretary of the Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers, told Mint that platforms do not all charge the same commission and that worker pay differences matter when seeking uniform contributions.
Best Value
A separate PTI report carried by The Economic Times on 6 September 2026 described analysts’ concern that a payout- or transaction-linked rate might weigh heavily on high-frequency, low-ticket businesses such as ride-hailing, or be poorly matched to the paying entity’s economic capacity. Those are attributed concerns, not settled empirical findings. The same report said the Labour Ministry was pushing to standardise contributions on a per-transaction or payout-linked basis; that account is secondary reporting and does not establish that a policy change has been enacted.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the contribution is intended to support
The Press Information Bureau describes the contributions as going to a Social Security Fund under the Code on Social Security, 2020. Its 2025 backgrounder says gig and platform workers have statutory recognition and identifies government-notified social-security benefits such as accident insurance, health and maternity benefits. It also describes registration through e-Shram and Aadhaar-linked IDs intended to make benefits portable across platforms.
Changing the contribution calculation would not by itself change an individual worker’s eligibility or guarantee a particular benefit. A PTI report carried by The Economic Times on 6 September 2026 described eligibility thresholds under the rules as 90 days of engagement with one aggregator, or 120 days across multiple aggregators in a financial year. The contribution-base proposal and those reported eligibility criteria address different questions.
How large is the policy question?
Mint reported NITI Aayog estimates of more than 1 crore gig workers in 2024–25 and a projection of 2.35 crore by 2029–30. These are estimates and a projection as reported by Mint in 2026, not a count of workers covered by any particular contribution assessment.
The practical policy choice is not simply turnover versus payouts. Any revised structure would need to define which entities contribute, what counts as turnover or worker payment, how platform and principal-service models are treated, and whether a sector cap or other ceiling limits the amount. The available examples and reporting present competing arguments, not an independently audited comparison of liabilities across all platforms.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
