SC awards ₹12 lakh to woman denied IOCL job over gender; slams the organisation for denying equal oppurtunity

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) to pay ₹12 lakh as compensation to a woman who was denied a job at its LPG bottling plant allegedly because she was a woman.

The court said the denial of employment on the basis of gender was an affront to the woman’s dignity and came down heavily on the public sector undertaking for denying her equal opportunity.

“It is an affront to womanhood, we can say, and that too by a Government of India undertaking,” Justice Aravind Kumar, who was hearing the case with Justice Vipul M Pancholi, told IOCL’s counsel.

The woman, a resident of Gudha village, was among 49 people recommended by a local committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner for employment at an IOCL LPG bottling plant. She appeared for an interview for the post of casual khalasi/peon/refilling helper.

However, while 43 other candidates received appointment letters, she was not appointed.

When the matter came before the Supreme Court, IOCL’s counsel argued that the list prepared by the committee was only a recommendation and did not guarantee appointment. The counsel also suggested that the woman may have been found unsuitable because the job involved manual labour, including lifting LPG cylinders, as well as night shifts.

Justice Kumar questioned the corporation’s position. “You denied her appointment just because she is a lady? This is disrespect to womanhood,” the judge said.

The court noted that the woman had since reached retirement age but had continued to pursue her claim. Since she could no longer be appointed, the bench decided to award her lump-sum compensation instead.

“We are from India, and every day we say respect women and that she is a goddess,” Justice Kumar said. “Day in, day out they [women] lift gas cylinders in their house. When men are not there, it is she who will change the gas cylinder.”

The corporation’s counsel requested that the matter be referred to mediation, but the bench declined the request.

The woman had initially challenged the denial before the trial court, which found that she fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria. It also relied on the evidence of a defence witness indicating that she had been denied the job because she was a woman.

The trial court consequently directed her absorption as a casual employee in an administrative post or as a peon, rather than in a labourer’s post.

The First Appellate Court later reversed that decision, holding that the woman’s name had only been recommended and that she had never actually been selected. It also held that the trial court had granted her relief for a post for which she had not been interviewed.

She then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

In an October 14, 2025 order, the High Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, holding that the woman had no legal or vested right to appointment. It also held that the alleged rejection on the ground of gender, by itself, could not justify an order of mandatory appointment in the absence of an established legal right.

The woman subsequently approached the Supreme Court.

With her having reached the age of superannuation, the Supreme Court said compensation was an appropriate remedy for the discrimination she had faced and ordered IOCL to pay her ₹12 lakh.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)