Government notifies National Social Security Board for Unorganised Workers and Gig & Platform Workers under the Labour Codes

1. At a Glance

• The Ministry of Labour & Employment has notified two National Social Security Boards (NSSBs) under the Code on Social Security. One covers unorganised workers and the other covers gig & platform workers [1].
• The NSSBs are statutory bodies that recommend, advise and monitor. They do not run any scheme themselves [1].
• The notification puts the digital-economy workforce into the formal welfare system. The Social Security Code is the first Indian law to define gig and platform workers [1][5].
• UPSC relevance: it touches labour reforms, cooperative federalism (Centre and States sit together on the Boards), platform regulation and India's large informal workforce, all of which are frequently asked.

2. Why in the News

• 30 Oct 2026: MoLE notified both NSSBs under the Code on Social Security [1].
• It comes after the four Labour Codes took effect on 21 Nov 2025 [4] and the Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 were notified on 08 May 2026 [3].

3. Background & Evolution

• Rationale: India's labour laws were scattered and outdated. The four Labour Codes consolidated 29 central labour laws [7].
• Milestones (chronological):
• 2020: Code on Social Security, 2020 enacted. It defines aggregators and gig/platform workers and lets the NSSB handle gig-worker welfare [2].
• June 2022: NITI Aayog released its report on India's gig and platform economy. It estimated 77 lakh gig workers in 2020-21 [8][9].
• Feb 2025: Union Budget 2025-26 announced e-Shram registration, ID cards and AB-PMJAY health cover for online platform workers [10][11].
• 21 Nov 2025: all four Labour Codes made effective [4].
• 08 May 2026: Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 notified. They make registration of gig and platform workers on a Central portal mandatory, and require aggregators to share worker data through API [3].

• 30 Oct 2026: both NSSBs notified [1].

• Related earlier and parallel efforts: the e-Shram portal, which gives workers a UAN on a self-declaration basis [5]; the draft Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Bill, 2024, a State-level model [S2-related PRS page, see S13].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Economic

• The gig workforce is growing fast, from 77 lakh to a projected 2.35 crore by 2029-30, so the Boards will cover a fast-expanding segment [8][9].
• Aggregators fund the scheme through a levy of 1–2% of turnover, capped at 5% of payouts. This shifts part of the welfare cost from the state to platforms [2].
• It may raise platform compliance costs and get passed on to consumers or workers. The impact depends on the rate the government notifies.

Social

• It addresses the social security gap for informal and digital workers who have no conventional employer-employee relationship [1].
• Portable, Aadhaar-linked identity on e-Shram helps workers who switch between several platforms [5].
• Maternity and health cover matter for women in delivery, care and home-services platforms [5].

Legal / Constitutional

• The Boards are statutory, created under the Code [1][2]. Social security is in the Concurrent List, which explains the joint Centre-State representation.
• Gig workers are a separate legal category from employees and from traditional unorganised workers [1].

Ethical / Governance

• Workers, platforms and governments share one forum (described as tripartite or multi-stakeholder) [1].
• The Centre controls procedure, chairs the Boards and assigns residual functions. Critics may see this as centralising power [1].
• The Board's power to review fund expenditure adds an accountability check [1].

Administrative

• The Boards only recommend and monitor. Results depend on Centre and State schemes actually being notified and funded [1].
• Registration depends on self-declaration. Gig registrations of about 5 lakh are far below the estimated workforce [5][8].
• Aggregator data-sharing through API under the 2026 Rules is the key enabler for tracking contributions [3].

Technological

• Benefits are delivered digitally: e-Shram UAN, platform API integration and a Central portal [3][5].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 21 Nov 2025: four Labour Codes brought into force [4].
• Nov 2025: e-Shram registrations crossed 31.38 crore, including 5.09 lakh gig/platform workers [5][6].
• 2026: Economic Survey 2025-26 noted that the Codes consolidated 29 central laws [7].
• 08 May 2026: Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 notified, mandating gig worker registration and aggregator data-sharing [3].
• 30 Oct 2026: NSSBs for unorganised workers and for gig & platform workers notified [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The NSSB is constituted under the Code on Social Security, 2020, not under the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008 [1][2].
• Chairperson: the Union Minister for Labour & Employment [1].
• The NSSB recommends and monitors schemes. It does not administer them [1].
• The Board must meet at least three times a year [1].
• The gig-worker Board includes 5 aggregator reps, 5 worker reps, 5 State Govt reps and the DG of ESIC [2].
• Aggregator contribution: 1–2% of annual turnover, not more than 5% of payouts to gig workers [2].
• Aggregators are listed in the Seventh Schedule of the Code, in nine categories [2].
• The Code is the first Indian law to define "gig worker" and "platform worker" [5].
• The four Labour Codes took effect on 21 November 2025 [4].
• The Labour Codes subsume 29 central labour laws [7].
• The Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 were notified on 08 May 2026 [3].
• NITI Aayog projects 2.35 crore gig workers by 2029-30 [8][9].
• Budget 2025-26 extended AB-PMJAY (₹5 lakh/family/year) to online platform workers [10][11].
• e-Shram issues a Universal Account Number (UAN) on a self-declaration basis [5].

8. This Board Is Not New: What Happened to the 2009 Board

• India already had a National Social Security Board for unorganised workers, from 2009
• The Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008 came into force on 14 May 2009. Its Board was set up on 18 August 2009 [20].
• That Board had the same job as today's Board: recommend schemes, advise the Centre and monitor schemes [21].

• So a new Board alone does not prove that workers will be better protected. The real question is whether this one has something the old one did not.

• The old law had a known weak spot, and it is still with us

• When PRS analysed the 2007 Bill, it found no process to check a worker's self-declaration (the worker's own claim about their job and income). The Bill also set no time limit for issuing identity cards [22].
• e-Shram still gives a UAN on a self-declaration basis [5].

• Self-registration is weak for this reason: only 5.09 lakh gig and platform workers had registered by Nov 2025 [5][6]. NITI Aayog had estimated 77 lakh gig workers back in 2020-21 [8]. That means fewer than 7 in 100 of even the older estimate had signed up.

• What is actually different this time is the data link to platforms

• The 2026 Central Rules make registration of gig workers mandatory and require aggregators (the app companies, such as delivery and ride apps) to share worker data through an API, a direct computer-to-computer data link [3].

• If this works, workers will no longer need to come forward on their own. The platform's records will register them.

• PRS warned that the Code mostly copied the old structure

• PRS said the 2019 Bill 'largely retains the current set up'. It also said the Bill did not fully carry out the National Commission on Labour's recommendations [15].
• A Board that can only advise has the same limits now as in 2009. It cannot make a scheme exist if the government does not notify and fund it.

9. Parliament's Committee Asked for More Than It Got

• The Standing Committee on Labour (2020) made four key demands. Only one made it into the law
• The Committee examined the 2019 Bill. It asked to (i) include gig and platform workers in the definition of 'unorganised workers', (ii) define 'gig worker' more precisely, and (iii) widen 'platform worker' so that future types of work are covered [14].
• The 2020 Code adopted only the third point [14].

• So gig workers remain a separate category. This is why the government needed a second, separate Board.

• The Committee wanted universal coverage with a fixed deadline

• It said the Code should aim for social security for all workers, including unorganised, gig and platform workers. It wanted secure funding and a definite time frame [14].

• Neither the Code nor the 2026 notification sets a target date for universal coverage [1][2].

• The Committee asked for fewer bodies, and now there are more

• It said social security delivery was split across too many bodies and called for a 'more compact system of governance' [14].
• Today a worker may come under two National Boards [1], ESIC (the state insurance body for employees), e-Shram, and also a State gig-worker board if the State has its own law [18].
• A delivery worker who also does construction work in the off-season may not know which Board or scheme covers them.

10. Who Pays, How Much, and Who Collects It

• The rate has been left for later
• The Code says aggregators pay 1–2% of annual turnover. The government fixes the exact rate by notification [2].
• Before 2020, the Standing Committee had pointed out that the Bill was silent on how schemes would be funded and on what digital intermediaries (platforms) would have to pay [14][15].

• Until the rate is notified, the Board has nothing to review. One of its listed functions is reviewing spending from the fund [1].

• A turnover-based levy is hard to link to individual workers

• The levy is calculated on the company's total turnover. It is not linked to any single worker [2].

• Many gig workers use two or three apps. A turnover levy does not show how much each app contributed for a given worker.

• Rajasthan uses a different model: a fee on every transaction

• Rajasthan's 2023 Act charges aggregators a fee on the value of each transaction with a gig worker, at a rate the State notifies. Tax is excluded from that value [18].
• Late payment carries 12% simple interest a year. Unpaid dues can be recovered like arrears of land revenue, which means the State can use its strong revenue-recovery powers [18].

• A per-transaction fee follows each ride or delivery, so it fits workers who use several apps.

• States are choosing their own rates, so platforms may pay twice

• The Karnataka Bill, 2025 sets a fee of not less than 1% and not more than 5% of the payout to workers [19].
• Social security is in the Concurrent List (subjects where both Parliament and State legislatures can make laws). So a platform could face both the Central levy and a State fee for the same worker.
• The Board has 5 State Government members [2]. It is the natural forum to settle this overlap, but the notification gives it no clear power to do so [1].

11. Welfare Without Employee Status: The Strongest Objection

• The objection: this law gives gig workers welfare, not rights
• The Code treats gig workers as a category outside the employer-employee relationship [1].
• Worker groups at the ILO argue that many platform workers are wrongly labelled 'independent contractors'. This is called misclassification (calling a worker self-employed when the platform actually controls their work). Many court cases worldwide are about this question [16].
• The ILO's Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006 (No. 198) says a worker's status should be decided by the actual facts of the work, not by the label in the contract [16].

• Critics say a welfare Board does not touch this question. A worker may get insurance but still have no protection from being removed from an app without notice.

• What is fair in this objection

• The NSSB can only recommend and monitor. It cannot decide anyone's employment status [1].

• The Standing Committee's wish to bring gig workers under the 'unorganised worker' definition was not adopted [14].

• The honest answer: a minimum floor first, status questions later

• Even at the ILO, the debate is open. Employers' groups accepted fixing misclassification but also wanted social protection for workers who are genuinely self-employed [16].
• Countries have taken different paths [17]:
  • France gives self-employed platform workers certain specific protections.
  • Italy extends labour and social protection to anyone whose work is organised by another party.
  • Colombia is building a middle category, between employee and self-employed, only for platform workers.

• India's choice is closest to France and Colombia. It protects workers without settling the employment question. That is defensible as a first step, but it is a choice, not the only option.

• The global rule may change soon

• The ILO is drafting a Convention (a binding treaty for countries that ratify it) along with a Recommendation on decent work in the platform economy [16].
• If adopted, India will have to decide whether its separate 'gig worker' category meets that standard.

12. What Each Actor Should Do Next

• MoLE should notify the levy rate and the Board's procedure rules quickly
• Both are left to the Centre [1][2].

• Without them the Board cannot review a fund or meet under clear rules. The old 2009 Board shows that a Board alone does not deliver benefits [20].

• The Board should recommend a per-transaction contribution, following Rajasthan

• A fee on each transaction follows the worker across apps [18].

• With the API data required under the 2026 Rules [3], each contribution can be credited to the worker's own UAN.

• The Board should use its 5 State members to prevent double levies

• Rajasthan already has its own Act and Karnataka has a Bill with a 1–5% fee [18][19].

• The Board could recommend that a platform's payment to a State fund counts against its Central contribution, so the same worker is not paid for twice.

• The Centre should set a deadline for universal coverage, as the Standing Committee asked

• The Committee asked for secure funding and a definite time frame [14].

• A target matters because the workforce is growing fast, from 77 lakh to a projected 2.35 crore by 2029-30 [8][9].

• India should follow the ILO platform-work standard as it develops

• The ILO's work on a Convention and Recommendation [16] will set the global benchmark. The Board's advisory role makes it the right body to recommend how India responds.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Only 5.09 lakh gig/platform workers on e-Shram (Nov 2025) against NITI Aayog's estimate of 77 lakh (2020-21), so fewer than 7 in 100 had registered [5][8]
• Data: The first NSSB, under the 2008 Act, was set up on 18 Aug 2009. Advisory Boards are not new [20]
• Report/Committee: Standing Committee on Labour (2020) report on the Code on Social Security, 2019. It asked for gig workers to be included as 'unorganised workers', universal coverage within a time frame, and compact governance. Only the platform-worker definition change was adopted [14]
• Report/Committee: NITI Aayog, 'India's Booming Gig and Platform Economy' (2022) [9]
• Law/Case: Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023: a fee on each transaction, with 12% interest on dues and recovery as arrears of land revenue [18]
• Law/Case: ILO Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006 (No. 198): employment status is decided by facts, not contract labels [16]
• Comparison: France gives self-employed platform workers specific protections; Italy extends labour protection to anyone whose work is organised by another; Colombia is building a middle category for platform workers [17]
• Scheme: AB-PMJAY extended to platform workers (₹5 lakh/family/year), the first concrete benefit, delivered through e-Shram [11]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population; mechanisms, laws, institutions and bodies set up for their protection; statutory bodies.
• GS-III: Indian economy, employment and inclusive growth; effects of the digital economy.
• Question stems: 1. The recognition of gig and platform workers under the Code on Social Security, 2020 marks a paradigm shift in India's welfare architecture. Critically examine the role of the National Social Security Board in this context. (15 marks) 2. Discuss the challenges in extending social security to gig and platform workers in India, given the absence of a traditional employer-employee relationship. (10 marks) 3. Evaluate the aggregator-contribution model for funding social security of platform workers. Is it fiscally and economically sustainable? (15 marks)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Four Labour Codes (Wages, IR, OSH-WC, SS): the parent reform package [4].
• e-Shram portal: the registration and identity backbone for unorganised and gig workers [5].
• AB-PMJAY extension to platform workers: the first concrete health benefit for gig workers [11].
• NITI Aayog gig economy report (2022): the source of workforce estimates and policy recommendations [8].
• State gig-worker laws (Rajasthan, Karnataka): State-level models running alongside the Central Code [13].
• ESIC & EPFO: the existing social security institutions. The DG of ESIC sits on the Board [2].
• ILO Social Protection Floors / Convention 102: the international benchmark for universal social security.
• Concurrent List, Entry 23-24 (social security, labour welfare): the constitutional basis for Centre-State co-governance.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Gig worker (Economy): The Boards cover gig workers, a legal category outside the employer-employee relationship that the Code defines for the first time.
• Platform economy (Economy): Platforms like delivery and ride apps create this workforce and are made to fund its welfare.
• Aggregator (Economy): Aggregators sit on the Board and pay the 1–2% turnover levy, and the Code lists them in a schedule.
• Universal social security (Economy): The Standing Committee wanted coverage for all workers within a deadline, which the Code does not set.
• Labour laws (Economy): The Boards come from the four Labour Codes, which merged 29 central laws.
• Concurrent List (Polity): Social security is a Concurrent subject, so Centre and States sit on the Boards and may both levy fees.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Recommend vs administer: the NSSB does not implement schemes. It recommends and monitors [1].
• Wrong chair: the chair is the Labour Minister, not the PM or the Secretary, Labour [1].
• Wrong parent law: the Board comes from the Code on Social Security, 2020. The 2008 Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act has been subsumed [2][7].
• Contribution base: the levy is a % of aggregator turnover (1–2%) capped at 5% of worker payouts. It is not a % of worker earnings [2].
• Date confusion: Code enacted 2020, Codes in force 21 Nov 2025 [4], Central Rules 08 May 2026 [3], Boards notified 30 Oct 2026 [1].
• Structure nuance: in the Code's text the NSSB also serves as the gig-worker Board, with a modified composition [2]. The 2026 notification describes separate Boards for the two groups [1]. Check the bare Act's section numbers before quoting them.