Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court recused himself on Wednesday from hearing writ petitions challenging the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025, the rules framed under the Act, and the related notices issued to platforms.
The judge mentioned that he was stepping aside from hearing the case as one of the petitions had been filed through the firm IndusLaw, suggesting a possible conflict of interest if he were to hear the case.
The counsel for one of the petitioners said no one was opposed to justice Govindaraj hearing the case, but the judge was firm in his stand.
The court will assign the petition before another judge.
The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) and several platform aggregators have challenged the constitutional validity of the state’s law aimed at providing social security and welfare benefits to gig workers.
They filed a petition after the state government did not respond to IAMAI's request to defer the levy of the gig workers’ welfare fee until the Centre and the state evolve a mechanism to offset contributions made under their respective laws, and notify specific welfare schemes for gig workers.
Per the state law, ecommerce operators need to contribute 1% of their commission, subject to a prescribed cap, towards a welfare fund for gig workers. Karnataka is home to several app-based platforms, including Amazon, Zomato, Uber, Ola, Meesho, Porter, and Blinkit, which collectively engage thousands of gig workers.
The writ petition, filed by the industry body along with Eternal, Zepto, Swiggy, Urban Company, and Valmo Transportation, seeks to quash notices issued to the platforms to comply with statutory obligations, including constituting internal dispute resolution committees and remitting welfare fees.
The petitioners argue that the state legislation is inconsistent with the Code on Social Security, 2020, enacted by parliament to create a uniform national framework for social security covering all worker categories, including gig and platform workers.
While the state law provides that contributions made under it would be adjusted against obligations per the central legislation, the association argued that the mechanism for such adjustments has not been notified. In the absence of reconciliation guidelines, aggregators could face duplicate financial obligations, it said.
The challenge also covers welfare fee notices issued on June 22, directing aggregators to remit contributions under Section 20 of the Act and submit proof of payment, along with prescribed returns, by July 5.
