Karnataka's draft rules for gig workers' board allow aggregators to self-declare contributions
The draft, issued on June 30, lays out detailed mechanisms for calculating, declaring and depositing the welfare fee, while also allowing voluntary contributions under corporate social responsibility (CSR).
It comes amid a nationwide debate over the rights and protections of gig workers, many of whom fall outside the traditional labour laws.
You Can Also Check:
Bengaluru AQI
|
Weather in Bengaluru
|
Bank Holidays in Bengaluru
|
Public Holidays in Bengaluru
Gig workers — defined as individuals engaged in temporary, flexible or project-based work — are set to be covered under these rules through a dedicated welfare board, with the govt overseeing compliance.
According to Section 17 of the draft rules, "the collection of welfare fee shall be undertaken by the state govt within 30 days from the end of each quarter".
Further, it mandates that the aggregator shall, within 30 working days of the end of each quarter, automatically calculate the welfare fee and self-declare a fee equivalent to 1-5% of each payout made to the gig worker, to be notified by the govt from time to time. This gives aggregators flexibility in the contribution process, but also ties them to a clear timeline and percentage cap for compliance.
In cases of miscalculation or overpayment, the draft provides a refund mechanism. "In case of any excess or incorrect contribution of the welfare fee, the aggregator shall claim refund from the board within 90 days," the rules state.
In a notable incentive to encourage wider support for the fund, the draft allows aggregators to make additional payments over the statutory requirement, as part of their CSR obligations.
"Voluntary contributions over and above the mandatory welfare fee towards the Karnataka gig workers' social security, as a CSR initiative under the Companies Act-2013, can qualify for income tax deductions under the provisions of the Income Tax Act-1961," the draft rules state.
Penalty & recovery
However, the rules also lay out penalties for non-compliance. If an aggregator fails to deposit the welfare fee within the stipulated time despite receiving a notice, it will be fined, with recovery mechanisms clearly outlined.
To ensure transparency, the rules mandate robust data management. Aggregators are required to maintain detailed records of welfare payments and ensure their availability to the authorities. The draft also proposes the creation of an internal dispute resolution committee to address the grievances of gig workers related to welfare contributions.
The draft is currently open for public consultation, and stakeholders can submit objections or suggestions before the rules are finalised.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Doctor's Day 2025
,
messages
and quotes!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
38 minutes ago
- Mint
Supreme Court closes loophole, puts business partners on notice
A recent Supreme Court ruling has plugged a longstanding loophole that often allowed defaulting partners of a firm to escape liability and evade prosecution on procedural grounds. In a judgment delivered on a cheque-bounce case, the Supreme Court on 14 July ruled that such partners can be prosecuted directly even if the partnership firm itself is not formally named as an accused. Setting aside a previous Madras High Court order, the apex court emphasised the fundamental legal distinction between a partnership firm and a company, reinforcing that partners bear direct, joint, and several liability for a partnership firm's actions—unlike directors of a company. A partnership firm and its partners are the same in the eyes of the law, and thus, a notice to such partners is effectively a notice to the firm, the Supreme Court clarified. Legal experts said the Supreme Court's decision would have wide-ranging implications for commercial litigation, as it strengthens the position of creditors by ensuring that individuals responsible for issuing dud cheques from partnership accounts can be held accountable more swiftly. The core of the issue rested on the interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It deals with offences by companies and also outlines the liability of partners when a firm commits an offence under Section 138, which relates to dishonoured cheques. 'Earlier, many courts had taken the view that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the partners of a partnership firm was not maintainable unless the firm itself was also named as an accused and served with a statutory notice," said Abhinav Agnihotri, partner at Burgeon Law. 'This often allowed the accused partners to escape prosecution on technical grounds." The Supreme Court's ruling dismantled this defence. 'The court reasoned that, under Indian law, a partnership firm is not a separate legal entity from its partners, who are jointly and severally liable," Agnihotri added. 'This significantly streamlines the prosecution process in cheque-bounce cases by removing a technical hurdle, making it practically easier and quicker to proceed against the individuals responsible." The ruling's distinction between a traditional firm and a limited liability partnership will be useful in interpreting other statutes like the Companies Act, said Gaurav Pingle, a company secretary. 'The Supreme Court has upheld the basic principles of corporate law—i.e., separate legal entity, perpetual succession, (and) liability of partners in relation to the liability of partnership firm under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881," he said. 'Every partner is liable' The case involved a loan of ₹21 lakh advanced by Dhanasingh Prabhu to partners in Mouriya Coirs. One partner, on behalf of the firm, issued a cheque towards repaying the loan, but the cheque was dishonoured because the firm's account was frozen. While Prabhu issued a statutory notice to two partners of Mouriya Coirs, he did not name the firm as an accused. The Madras High Court quashed the complaint on the grounds that the firm was not arraigned as an accused. Reversing this, the Supreme Court delved into the distinct nature of a partnership firm. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, writing for the bench, observed that a partnership is fundamentally different from a company. 'Partnership is merely a convenient name to carry out business by partners. Thus, a firm is not an entity of persons in law but is merely an association of individuals and firm name is only a collective name of those individuals who constitute the firm," he wrote. The Supreme Court clarified that a firm is merely a 'compendious name" for its partners. In effect, proceeding against the partners is proceeding against the firm itself. 'Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner," the court noted, referencing Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act. 'A complaint can validly lie against the partners without naming the firm, since the liability is personal and not vicarious," said Suvigya Awasthy, partner at PSL Advocates and Solicitors. While the Supreme Court's judgment settles a key legal question, some experts pointed to potential challenges. Awasthy raised concerns about the risk of misuse against partners who may not be involved in the day-to-day operations of a partnership firm or a specific transaction that led to a dishonoured cheque. 'Since partners in a partnership firm are personally, jointly and severally liable for the acts of the firm, a complaint under the NI Act (Negotiable Instruments Act) can be filed against all the partners, regardless of their actual role or involvement in the specific transaction," he warned.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Wife pays no income tax after selling two houses gifted by husband
Do you have doubts regarding family property transfers and long-term capital gain (LTCG) taxation?This case might serve as an eye-opener. A Mumbai-based woman has successfully won a legal battle at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which ruled she was not liable to pay income tax after selling two flats worth Rs 6 crore that were gifted to her by her husband, reported The Economic case has drawn wide attention for its implications on capital gains tax in cases of spousal property SOLD, REINVESTED IN HUSBAND'S FLAT The woman sold two residential properties in 2020, which were originally bought by her husband in 2002 for Rs 34 lakh and Rs 17 lakh. The total sale value reached Rs 6 crore. She then reinvested the capital gains into another residential property, a Lodha apartment in Mumbai that was registered in her husband's Income Tax Department raised objections, arguing that the transaction appeared to be a roundabout way to avoid questioned whether the reinvestment in her husband's house qualified for the capital gains exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. However, ITAT Mumbai ruled in her tribunal confirmed that the transfer of property from husband to wife was legally valid and properly documented. The reinvestment of the capital gains into a residential property met the conditions for claiming the exemption, even though the transaction was between close family PRECEDENT CLARIFIED BY TRIBUNALThe ITAT decision reaffirms that capital gains exemptions under Section 54 are available even when the sold property is received as a gift, provided the taxpayer adheres to the rules regarding reinvestment and to the tribunal's findings, the woman had declared long-term capital gains of Rs 4.08 crore after applying inflation used the entire amount to purchase a share in the new flat, meeting the reinvestment conditions under Section 54. The tribunal stated that the transaction, though between spouses, was genuine and lawful, making her fully eligible for the experts believe this judgment will help clarify confusion for taxpayers involved in family property transfers. As reported by The Economic Times, the tribunal emphasised that there was no evidence of tax evasion or misuse, and the woman had lawfully followed the provisions of the Income Tax case sets a significant precedent, highlighting that tax exemptions cannot be denied simply due to the familial nature of a transaction, as long as legal formalities are properly followed.- Ends
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Over 37,000 companies opted for voluntary strike-off in 2 years: Centre
New Delhi: Between May 1, 2023, and June 30, 2025, a total of 37,212 companies voluntarily removed their names from official records under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, the Parliament was informed on Tuesday. 'During the period from 01.05.2023 to 30.06.2025 total number of 37212 companies have availed the exit process under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013,' according to figures furnished by Minister of State for Corporate Affairs Harsh Malhotra, in a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha. These companies chose to exit the registry after extinguishing all their liabilities, following the due process prescribed under the law, the minister said. Section 248(2) allows companies to apply for strike-off if they are no longer carrying on business and have cleared all dues. Responding to a question the minister clarified that while the last government-led strike-off drive under Section 248(1) was conducted in 2022-23, no such mass drive is currently underway. 'Under Section 248(1), the Registrar of Companies can strike off firms that have not carried out any business or operations for two consecutive financial years and have not applied for dormant status, or where subscribers have not paid the promised share capital within 180 days of incorporation,' he mentioned. A voluntary strike-off is when a company decides to close down on its own, with the approval of its shareholders, after clearing all its pending debts and dues. The company then applies to have its name removed from the official register of companies, which means it will no longer exist. This is different from an involuntary strike-off, where the Registrar of Companies (ROC) starts the process to close a company because it has not been following the rules or has been inactive.
