Supreme Court Calls Gender-Based Job Denial By Indian Oil “Disrespect To Womanhood”; Awards ₹12 Lakh to Haryana Woman
Sumitra, the petitioner before Supreme Court was among 49 shortlisted candidates for helper post at IOCL’s Karnal LPG plant but was not appointed after being deemed unsuitable on basis of her gender.
Supreme Court noting that the woman crossed the age of superannuation did not direct her appointment but directed IOCL to pay her a lump-sum compensation of ₹12 lakh.
The Supreme Court has directed Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to pay ₹12 lakh compensation to a Haryana woman who was denied a job at an LPG bottling plant in 1988 because she was considered unsuitable for the work on account of her gender.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi passed the order in a plea filed by Sumitra, a resident of Karnal, who had applied for the post of a helper when an IOCL LPG bottling plant was opened in the city in 1988.
Sumitra was among 49 candidates shortlisted for the post, out of whom 43 were eventually selected. Although she was educationally qualified and fulfilled the prescribed requirements, she was not appointed. She was subsequently informed that she had been denied employment because she was a woman.
Before the Supreme Court, IOCL defended its decision by stating that the nature of the job, the working environment, odd working hours and the presence of male employees made the petitioner unsuitable for the post. The job involved handling LPG cylinders.
The Supreme Court rejected the gender-based rationale. During the hearing, the bench questioned the assumption that women could not perform work involving LPG cylinders and observed that women routinely handle domestic LPG cylinders.
The bench described the denial of employment by a Government of India undertaking on this ground as an “affront to womanhood” and said the decision amounted to disrespect towards women.
The litigation had continued for more than three decades. Sumitra had initially approached the trial court, which in 1990 directed IOCL to absorb her in a post other than that of a labourer. IOCL challenged the decision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
In October 2025, the High Court overturned the trial court’s decision. Sumitra thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order.
By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, Sumitra had attained the age of 63 and had crossed the age of superannuation. Consequently, the Court did not direct her appointment to the post after nearly four decades.
Instead, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the prolonged litigation, the Court directed IOCL to pay her a lump-sum compensation of ₹12 lakh.