Mr Gupta said: "Most of the legal side of things I did not know. Uber had the upper hand with a lawyer and counsel in the tribunal. Amita Gupta with her husband Santosh. She will argue she was an employee of Uber. "The tribunal said there is not an obligation to log on the Uber app. But there is an obligation to work when you log on and if you don't accept jobs, your rating goes down. If the rating goes below 85 per cent, you get cut off. If there is no fixed time, how could they say she was late? Santosh Gupta "Uber says there is no fixed time to reach a location. But if there is no fixed time, how could they say she was late?"

Loading The Transport Workers’ Union (TWU) will on Monday ask the full bench of the FWC in Sydney to hear Mrs Gupta's case on the grounds of public interest to determine whether she was an employee and not an independent contractor. The union won an unfair dismissal case against Foodora last year on behalf of food delivery rider Josh Klooger on the basis that he was an employee and not an independent contractor as asserted by the company. TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said: "Amita’s case shows the slave-like conditions gig economy workers face: in one week alone she was logged on to the app for 96 hours and was paid just $300. When she was late with an order by 10 minutes, Uber sacked her. "We do not believe it is in the public interest for these dystopian conditions to be allowed to endure and become the norm in Australia."

University of Adelaide professor of law Andrew Stewart said Mrs Gupta's case was significant because the FWC full bench and "potentially in due course the higher courts" would grapple with Uber’s defence to the accusation that its drivers or riders are employees. "This is the claim that workers who find jobs through Uber or Uber Eats are at no point under any requirement to work, so that the 'mutuality of obligation' necessary for an employment relationship is lacking," he said. "That suggestion has been comprehensively rejected ... in the UK, as being inconsistent with the reality of the relationship between Uber and its drivers. But it was accepted by commissioner Hampton in this matter, and was also cited by the Fair Work Ombudsman as the main reason for not taking Uber to court. "If Uber ultimately prevails, it may set an important precedent for other businesses seeking to avoid employment obligations. Conversely, a loss would mean a massive blow to its business model." Loading Replay Replay video Play video Play video