Zomato and Blinkit Founder Deepinder Goyal’s comments suggesting that the quick-commerce ecosystem operates in a “fair” manner come across as condescending and reveal a troubling lack of sensitivity towards delivery partners. They were made against the backdrop of a strike called by gig and platform workers on December 31, demanding better compensation and working conditions—context that makes the remarks particularly jarring.
While claiming that the gig economy is “one of India’s biggest organised job-creating engines”, Goyal would do well to recognise that these jobs are anything but organised. Delivery partners are not on company rolls, their incomes are not fixed, and their pay is flexible in the most precarious sense of the word—subject to unilateral cuts. Data from staffing firms shows that base pay per order in high-density zones has fallen sharply: from Rs 22-30 in September to Rs 15-27 in November, and now to as little as Rs 10-15.
Pay Paradox
Nor are the estimated 12.7 million gig workers entitled to the benefits available to blue-collar employees in conventional firms. Yet, even these are not the demands being made. The workers’ asks are modest and reasonable—compensation and benefits as envisaged under the Wage Code, safer working conditions, and a ban on 10-minute deliveries. Each of these deserves serious consideration. It may be true that q-comm deliveries often originate from nearby dark stores, making a 10-minute window theoretically feasible at modest speeds.
But the same logic does not apply to food delivery, where restaurants may be located at a considerable distance, often nudging riders into taking risks to meet unrealistic timelines. It is also true that these platforms employ large numbers of gig workers. But it bears remembering that the system attracts and retains workers not because it is “fair”, but because alternatives are scarce.
That reality also explains why many delivery partners likely reported for work on December 31 despite the strike call—missing a day’s income is simply not an option for many. Add to this the reports that some platforms offered payouts of Rs 120–150 per order between 6 pm and midnight on New Year’s Eve, and the pressure to log in becomes obvious. Few workers can afford to pass up such earnings, however temporary. None can dispute the importance of e-commerce or quick commerce to the economy, the opportunities they have created for small merchants or the scale of direct and indirect employment they generate. The capital invested and the entrepreneurial effort involved deserve recognition. But that cannot come at the cost of losing sight of the welfare of those who keep the system running.
Beyond Speed
Delivery partners must be treated as partners, not as expendable inputs in the pursuit of growth, market share, and valuation. The new labour codes, to their credit, recognise this reality. They mandate welfare, accident and health benefits and require aggregators to contribute 1-2% of annual turnover to a dedicated social security fund. It is also true that entrepreneurship in India has long been burdened by red tape and regulatory friction. But flexibility granted to business must be exercised with responsibility. Fairness, in the end, is what workers experience on the road, order after order. Even if Goyal’s intent was to defend a business model or clarify operational realities, the tone and framing risked sounding dismissive of genuine concerns. This is not a question of free speech. It is a question of corporate responsibility.