5 days ago
Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh to Woman Denied LPG Job
A woman applied for a job at an Indian Oil LPG plant.
She met the stated requirements and was recommended along with 48 other people.
However, she did not receive a job letter, while 43 others did.
Evidence in the Trial Court showed that she was rejected because she was a woman.
Some higher courts said that being recommended did not guarantee her a job.
The Supreme Court strongly criticised this reasoning and the alleged gender discrimination.
The judges said women can do work involving LPG cylinders.
Since the woman is now past retirement age, she cannot practically start the job.
The Court therefore ordered Indian Oil Corporation to pay her ₹12 lakh.
The Supreme Court ordered Indian Oil Corporation to pay ₹12 lakh to a woman denied an LPG plant job.
She was among 49 candidates recommended for work as a casual khalasi, peon or refilling helper.
The woman was not appointed while 43 other candidates received appointment letters.
A Trial Court found evidence that she was denied employment because she was a woman, but higher courts later rejected her claim.
Because she has reached retirement age, the Supreme Court awarded compensation instead of ordering her appointment.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Indian Oil Corporation and an unnamed woman who applied for an LPG plant job.
- What
- The Court ordered Indian Oil Corporation to pay ₹12 lakh compensation after the woman was denied employment allegedly because of her gender.
- Where
- Indian Oil Corporation’s LPG Bottling Plant; the case reached the Supreme Court from Punjab and Haryana.
- When
- The Supreme Court ruling was reported after the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision of October 14, 2025; the articles do not specify the Supreme Court ruling date.
- Why
- The Court found the woman had pursued a claim that she was denied equal employment because she was a woman, and she had reached retirement age.
Woman’s claim and court criticism
Corporation’s and higher courts’ position
Whether recommendation guaranteed employment
Woman’s claim and court criticism
The woman argued that she was eligible, had been recommended, and was denied the opportunity because she was a woman.
Corporation’s and higher courts’ position
The corporation argued that the recommendation was not binding, while the First Appellate Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court held that she had no legal or vested right to appointment.
Suitability for physical work
Woman’s claim and court criticism
The Supreme Court criticised the suggestion that women could not perform work involving lifting LPG cylinders or night shifts.
Corporation’s and higher courts’ position
The corporation’s counsel said officials may have considered her unsuitable because the job involved manual labour, lifting cylinders and night work.
Appropriate remedy
Woman’s claim and court criticism
The Trial Court directed that she be absorbed as a casual employee or appointed to an administrative or peon post.
Corporation’s and higher courts’ position
The Supreme Court declined to pursue appointment as a practical remedy because she had reached retirement age and instead awarded ₹12 lakh compensation.
Key facts
- Compensation
- ₹12 lakh
- Employer
- Indian Oil Corporation
- Job sought
- Casual khalasi, peon or refilling helper at an LPG bottling plant
- Recommended candidates
- 49, including the woman
- Candidates receiving appointment letters
- 43
- Trial Court finding
- The woman met the eligibility requirements and evidence indicated gender-based denial.
- Final remedy
- Compensation rather than appointment because she had reached retirement age.
Quotes
Justice Aravind Kumar
Supreme Court judge who criticised the denial of the woman’s employment.
“You denied her appointment just because she is a lady? This is disrespect to womanhood. She has now attained superannuation, but she has been prosecuting her right throughout. Award her lump-sum compensation.”
freepressjournal.in
“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.”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Bengaluru CEO’s Hiring Ban Sparks Workplace Bias Debate
Supreme Court Presses Coast Guard on Women’s Permanent Commissions
Kerala Commission Orders Shipping Firm To Pay Job-Seeking Mother
Orissa High Court Grants Relief to Dismissed Central Bank Workers
Mumbai Tribunal Awards ₹13.35 Crore to Families of HUL Employees
Delhi High Court Bars Maternity-Based Demotion and Workplace Disadvantage
Election Commission Says SIR Decisions Were Unanimous Despite Reported Objections
Supreme Court to hear Medha Roopam’s compensation challenge
Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Removal Of Communal Posts
Ex-CJI Gavai Calls for Parliament to Amend SC/ST Act
Rajpal Yadav’s Lalbaugcha Raja Queue Visit Sparks Online Debate
