Single Code, Multiple Statutes: Legislative Integration under the Social Security Code,2020

The Author, Ansh Dwivedi is a 4^th year B.A.LL.B. student at DSNLU,Vishakhapatnam.He is currently interning with Jasra & Jasra Law Offices under Mr. Shivam Jasra, Advocate.

1. Introduction.

The Code on Social Security, 2020 came into force on 21 November 2025[1], upon the Government notifying its implementation, marking a significant milestone in India’s labour law reforms. The Code consolidates nine existing central labour laws into a single, comprehensive framework aimed at providing universal social security coverage to workers across the organised, unorganised, gig, and platform sectors. It ensures access to social security benefits such as provident fund, health care, maternity benefits, gratuity, and compensation for employment-related injuries, extending statutory protection beyond traditional formal employees to include gig workers, platform workers, home-based workers, fixed-term employees, and other unorganised sector workers.

The legislative intent behind the enactment of the Code is rooted in the recommendations of the Second National Commission on Labour (2002), which had advocated for the consolidation of India’s 29 central labour laws into four streamlined Labour Codes to simplify compliance, remove multiplicity, and modernise labour regulation while ensuring adequate worker welfare. By recognising categories of workers whose contributions had long remained outside the formal social security, net particularly gig and platform workers, the Code seeks to address structural gaps in labour protection and adapt social security law to evolving forms of employment in the modern economy.

1.1.   Background to the Code on Social Security

Labour law reform in India has evolved through a long process involving expert committees and commissions, beginning with the Royal Commission on Labour (1929)[2]. Post-Independence, the First National Commission on Labour (1969)[3], chaired by Justice P.B. Gajendra Gadkar, examined existing labour laws and recommended comprehensive reforms, many of which were not implemented. Over time, further committees were constituted to address emerging challenges in labour regulation and worker welfare.

A significant shift occurred with the Second National Commission on Labour (2002)[4], which recommended consolidation of multiple labour laws into simplified codes and advocated an umbrella framework to extend minimum social security protection to unorganised workers, while accounting for globalisation, technological advancement, and changing employment patterns. These recommendations were reinforced by the reports of the National Commission on Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (2005–2007)[5], which highlighted structural gaps in social security coverage. Against this backdrop, the Code on Social Security, 2020 represents an effort to consolidate social security laws and expand coverage to organised, unorganised, gig, and platform workers.

1.2. What is “Social Security”?

According to section 2(78) “social security” means the measures of protection afforded to employees, unorganised workers, gig workers and platform workers to ensure access to health care and to provide income security, particularly in cases of old age, unemployment, sickness, invalidity, work injury, maternity or loss of a breadwinner by means of rights conferred on them and schemes framed, under this Code.[6]

2. Codification

According to Repeal Clause of the act, the following acts were repealed and unified into a new code, making compliance easier for employers and easier access of benefits for workers[7]

1. The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923;
2. The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948;
3. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952;
4. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959;
5. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961;
6. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972;
7. The Cine-Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981;
8. The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996;
9. The Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008

3. Types of Employers under the Code on Social Security, 2020.

As per section 2(27)[8] - An employer is any person or authority that engages one or more employees, whether directly or indirectly, for an establishment. In the case of government establishments, the employer is the authority or head of the concerned department, and for local authorities, the chief executive.

The term also includes:

1. the occupier of a factory;
2. the owner, agent, or qualified manager of a mine;
3. the person or authority having ultimate control over any other establishment, including a manager or managing director where control is delegated;
4. a contractor; and
5. the legal representative of a deceased employer.

4. Types of employees or workers under the Code on Social Security, 2020.

As per section 2(26) – An employee is any person employed for wages by an establishment, directly or through a contractor, to perform work of any nature—skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, technical, supervisory, managerial, or administrative—under express or implied terms of employment. The definition excludes apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 and members of the Armed Forces of the Union, but includes any person specifically declared as an employee by the appropriate Government.

5. Major changes introduced by the new code.

5.1. Inclusion of fixed term employee for payment of gratuity:

Section 53 of the Code on Social Security, 2020[24] provides that a fixed-term employee is entitled to gratuity on a pro-rata basis after completing at least one year of service, unlike the earlier position under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which generally required five years of continuous service. Further, for the purpose of calculation of gratuity, any period exceeding six months after the completion of one year shall be treated as an additional completed year of service. This pro-rata entitlement for fixed-term employees was not expressly recognised under the earlier gratuity law.

5.2. Inclusion Of Unorganised Workers, Gig Workers And Platform Workers under the social security scheme or code:

For the first time, the Code on Social Security, 2020 clearly defines “gig worker”, “platform worker”, and “aggregator”, thereby formally recognising new forms of employment. Chapter IX of the Code specifically provides for social security schemes for unorganised workers, gig workers, and platform workers. The introduction of an Aadhaar-linked Universal Account Number ensures portability of social security benefits across States, enabling seamless access to welfare entitlements irrespective of migration or change of employment.

5.3. Universal Coverage under the Code on Social Security, 2020

Under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the applicability of provident fund provisions was restricted to establishments specified in Schedule I of the Act, leading to sector-based coverage, interpretational disputes, and frequent litigation regarding applicability.

However, this sectoral restriction has been abolished under the new labour law framework. The Code on Social Security, 2020, adopts a unified and establishment-based applicability model. It extends the applicability of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) scheme to all establishments employing 20 or more employees, irrespective of the nature of industry, business, trade, or sector. This shift is consistent with the structural philosophy of the new Social Codes, particularly:

• the Code on Social Security, 2020 (universalisation of social security),
• the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (uniform threshold-based applicability),
• and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (establishment-centric regulation), which collectively move away from industry-specific regulation towards uniform, threshold-based legal applicability.

5.4. Uniform Definition of “Wages”.

One of the most significant reforms introduced by the Labour Codes is the standardisation of the definition of “wages” across all labour legislations, including the Code on Social Security, 2020. Under the Code, “wages” consist of:

• Basic pay
• Dearness allowance
• Retaining allowance, if any

All other components of remuneration - such as bonus, house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, overtime allowance, commission, incentives, and similar payments are excluded from wages up to a prescribed limit.

However, where such excluded components exceed 50% of the total remuneration (or such other percentage as may be notified by the Government), the excess amount is deemed to be wages and is added back for statutory purposes. This uniform wage definition ensures:

• Prevention of artificial wage-splitting by employers
• Greater transparency and predictability in wage computation
• Increase in the wage base, thereby enhancing social security benefits such as provident fund contributions, gratuity, pension, and leave encashment, all of which are linked to wages

The reform also brings consistency across different labour laws, reducing disputes and litigation relating to wage components.

5.5. Expanded Definition of “Family”

The Code on Social Security, 2020 adopts a broader and more inclusive definition of “family”, particularly for the purpose of Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) benefits.

In addition to the traditional members, the Code expands the definition to include:

• Mother-in-law and father-in-law of a woman employee, subject to a prescribed income ceiling; and
• Minor unmarried brother or sister who is wholly dependent on the insured person, where the parents are not alive.

This expansion reflects changing social realities and dependency structures within Indian families. By enlarging the scope of “family”, the Code ensures that a wider class of dependent relatives becomes eligible for medical and social security benefits under the ESI framework.

6. Gaps and Limitations.

6.1. Need for Broader Legal Guardrails Beyond Recognition:

As recently highlighted by Mr. Raghav Chadha[25] that the Social Security Code’s current framework still fails to protect gig workers’ basic labour interests in practice as evidenced by his defence of delivery partners striking for fairness, dignity, predictable rules, and safety, and his criticism of platforms labelling workers as “miscreants”  underscoring that legal recognition alone is insufficient without enforceable protections against exploitation, inadequate pay structures, unsafe conditions, and the lack of genuine social security guarantees for gig and platform workers.

6.2. Forced Delivery Practices Previously Allowed(gig workers)

The new Social Security Code (plus the Occupational Safety, Health & Working Conditions Code) helps address some root problems behind “10-minute delivery” by recognising gig/platform workers and giving them routes to social protection and workplace safety but it does not itself ban 10-minute delivery promises or directly force platforms to change their delivery-time algorithms. Recent government directions and transport/safety enforcement (not the Social Security Code alone) are what produced the immediate removal of “10-minute” branding by platforms.

6.3. Ambiguity in Employer–Aggregator Liability[26]

One of the most criticised aspects of the Code is the deliberate ambiguity surrounding the legal status and obligations of aggregators. By avoiding a clear employer - employee classification, the Code allows platforms to continue distancing themselves from core labour responsibilities, including contribution certainty, occupational safety liability, and compensation for workplace injuries. This ambiguity weakens accountability and enables platforms to externalise risks onto workers without corresponding obligations.

6.4. Absence of a Guaranteed National Minimum Social Security Framework

Despite decades of expert recommendations, particularly by the Second National Commission on Labour (2002) and the NCEUS (2005)[27], the Code on Social Security does not establish a national minimum social security guarantee as a statutory right. Social security benefits under the Code remain scheme-based and dependent on executive notifications, budgetary allocations, and administrative discretion. This undermines universality and leaves large sections of workers, especially in the unorganised sector, without assured protection against health risks, old age, unemployment, and income insecurity.

6.5. Continued Exclusion Through Threshold-Based Applicability

The Code retains the “20 or more workers” threshold for applicability of key social security schemes such as EPF and ESI. This directly contradicts the Second NCL’s recommendation to progressively remove thresholds to achieve universal coverage. Given that a vast majority of Indian enterprises employ fewer than twenty workers, the continued reliance on thresholds perpetuates exclusion and limits the reach of social security to a narrow segment of the workforce.[28]

6.6. Inadequate Protection for Unorganised, Agricultural, and Informal Workers

Although the Code on Social Security claims universal coverage, it effectively excludes large sections of the unorganised workforce, particularly agricultural workers. Its limited inclusion of only those engaged in spraying and dusting of pesticides is unduly narrow[29]. Further, by departing from the expansive definition of unorganised workers proposed by the NCEUS, the Code significantly restricts coverage, leaving the most vulnerable workers outside the effective social security net.

7. Conclusion.

The Code on Social Security, 2020 represents a significant legislative attempt to rationalise and consolidate India’s fragmented social security framework by integrating nine central labour laws into a single code. Its recognition of gig workers, platform workers, fixed-term employees, and unorganised workers marks an important shift towards acknowledging evolving forms of employment in a modern, digital economy. Reforms such as the uniform definition of wages, pro-rata gratuity for fixed-term employees, expanded family definitions, and portability of benefits demonstrate a genuine effort to modernise social security law and enhance administrative efficiency.

However, despite its progressive aspirations, the Code falls short of fulfilling the transformative vision articulated by the Second National Commission on Labour (2002) and the NCEUS (2005-2007). The continued reliance on threshold-based applicability, absence of a statutory national minimum social security guarantee, ambiguity in aggregator liability, and exclusion of large segments of unorganised and agricultural workers substantially dilute the promise of universal coverage. By leaving critical aspects of social security to executive discretion through schemes and notifications, the Code weakens legal certainty and undermines the constitutional mandate to secure social and economic justice for all workers.

In effect, while the Code on Social Security is an important step towards consolidation and recognition, it remains an incomplete reform. For the Code to achieve its intended objectives, it requires substantive amendments that reduce exclusions, strengthen enforceable rights, clarify employer and aggregator responsibilities, and institutionalise a guaranteed minimum social security framework. Without such corrective measures, the Code risks remaining a symbolic reform rather than a genuinely inclusive social security regime capable of protecting India’s most vulnerable workforce.

References: