New Delhi, Sep 17 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court on Thursday directed Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to pay Rs 12 lakh compensation to a woman who was denied a job in it, observing that discrimination against her on the ground of being a woman was an "affront to womanhood".
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi passed the direction while considering the woman’s claim arising from her denial of appointment with the public sector oil company.
During the hearing, the apex court questioned the IOCL’s stand that the woman was not suitable for the job, which involved manual labour and lifting LPG cylinders besides night shifts.
"You denied her appointment just because she is a lady? This is disrespect to womanhood," the Justice Aravind Kumar-led Bench observed.
Noting that the woman had attained the age of superannuation, the top court deemed it appropriate to award her lump-sum compensation for the discrimination she suffered instead of directing her appointment.
"She has now attained superannuation, but she has been prosecuting her right throughout. We will award her lump-sum compensation,” the Supreme Court said. It further remarked that women routinely handle LPG cylinders in their homes and questioned the rationale for treating the work as unsuitable for a woman.
"We are from India, and every day we say we respect women and that she is a goddess. It is an affront to womanhood, we can say, and that too by a Government of India undertaking," the bench 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."
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the IOCL submitted that the authorities may have found the woman unsuitable since the job required manual labour, including lifting LPG cylinders, and involved night shifts. It was also argued that the list containing the names of candidates was only a recommendation and did not have any binding force.
The dispute relates to the woman's claim for employment at IOCL's LPG bottling plant in Gudha. According to the background proceedings, a committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner had recommended the names of 49 candidates, including the woman, for employment.
The woman appeared for an interview for the post of casual khalasi/peon but was rejected.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court order recorded her contention that 43 candidates were selected after the interview, while she was rejected on the ground that she was a woman. She subsequently approached the trial court, which decreed her suit and directed the IOCL to absorb her as a casual employee or in an administrative post/peon post other than that of a labourer. The public sector oil company challenged the decision before the first appellate court, which reversed the trial court's judgment dated September 22, 1990, and dismissed the woman's suit on August 6, 1993.
The matter then came before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which, in its judgment passed on October 14, 2025, upheld the first appellate court's decision and dismissed the woman's appeal. A single-judge Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl observed that the appointments in question were for casual khalasi/peon posts on a daily-wage basis and were not against sanctioned posts. It further held that the recommendation made by the district administration had not been shown to be based on any statutory provision, rule or regulation that made it binding on IOCL to appoint the recommended candidates.
The High Court also observed that the woman had not been selected or worked with IOCL and that she did not have a vested right to appointment merely on the basis of the recommendation.
Relying on earlier Supreme Court precedents, it noted that mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list or empanelment does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The P&H High Court further held that there was no written order establishing that the woman's candidature had been rejected solely because she was a woman. It observed that, in the absence of a legal right to appointment, the alleged gender-based rejection could not by itself form the basis for directing her appointment. The High Court also noted that the document relied upon by the woman specifically related to "land losers", while she was not shown to fall within that category. It further recorded that there was no material before it to establish that IOCL was required under any rule, regulation or policy to appoint persons who were residents of the village or land losers.
Source: IANS
Gopi Adusumilli is a Programmer. He is the editor of SocialNews.XYZ and President of AGK Fire Inc.
He enjoys designing websites, developing mobile applications and publishing news articles on current events from various authenticated news sources.
When it comes to writing he likes to write about current world politics and Indian Movies. His future plans include developing SocialNews.XYZ into a News website that has no bias or judgment towards any.
He can be reached at gopi@socialnews.xyz
This website uses cookies.
