Supreme Court Orders ₹12 Lakh Compensation for Woman Discriminated by IOC
The Supreme Court has directed IOC to pay ₹12 lakh to a woman discriminated against for being female during a job application process.
New Delhi, September 17 (Daily Kiran) : The Supreme Court of India has ordered the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC) to pay ₹12 lakh in compensation to a woman who faced discrimination during a job application process. The court deemed the treatment of the woman, based solely on her gender, as an affront to femininity.
Justices Arvind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi examined the woman’s claims regarding her rejection for a position at the public sector oil company. During the proceedings, the court challenged IOC’s assertion that the woman was unsuitable for the job due to physical demands, such as lifting LPG cylinders and working night shifts.
Justice Arvind Kumar questioned, “Did you deny her the job simply because she is a woman? This is an insult to womanhood.” Acknowledging that the woman had reached retirement age, the court opted to award her a lump sum compensation rather than mandate her hiring.
The court emphasized, “She has fought for her rights consistently. We will grant her a one-time compensation.” It also criticized the notion that lifting LPG cylinders was inappropriate for women, pointing out that many women manage these tasks daily at home.
The bench remarked, “We are from India, where we profess respect for women, treating them as goddesses. This is a disgrace to womanhood, especially from a government enterprise. Women handle gas cylinders daily, even when men are not present.”
During the hearing, IOC’s attorney suggested that the woman may have been deemed unsuitable due to the job’s physical requirements. He also argued that the list of recommended candidates was not binding.
This dispute originated from the woman’s application for a position at IOC’s LPG bottling plant in Guhda. A committee led by the deputy commissioner had previously recommended 49 candidates, including her. However, she was ultimately rejected after attending the interview for the role of casual worker/peon.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court referenced her argument that 43 candidates were selected after the interview, while she was rejected solely based on her gender. Following this, she approached the trial court, which ruled in her favor, instructing IOC to employ her as a casual worker or in an administrative role. IOC challenged this decision in the appellate court, which overturned the trial court’s ruling in August 1993.
The matter escalated to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld the appellate court’s decision in October 2025, dismissing the woman’s appeal. Justice Vikas Bahl’s single-judge bench noted that the positions in question were for daily-wage casual workers and were not contrary to the approved posts. The court also stated that the district administration’s recommendations were not legally binding for IOC’s appointments.
The High Court concluded that the woman had neither been selected by IOC nor had she worked there, asserting that her claim to employment was not guaranteed based solely on recommendations. Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, the court clarified that inclusion in a selection list does not confer a guaranteed right to appointment. It also noted that there was no evidence proving her rejection was solely due to her gender.
In the absence of legal grounds for appointment, the alleged gender-based rejection could not justify a court order for her hiring. The High Court also observed that the document she referenced pertained specifically to “land losers,” a category to which she did not belong. The court recorded that there was no evidence suggesting that IOC was legally obligated to appoint residents or land losers from her village.
