SC awards ₹12 lakh to Haryana woman denied Indian Oil Corporation job in 1988

Haryana woman was denied helper’s job at an LPG bottling plant in 1988 because the company considered the work of carrying gas cylinders unsuitable for women

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) to pay ₹12 lakh in compensation to a Haryana woman who was denied a helper’s job at an LPG bottling plant in 1988 because the company considered the work of carrying gas cylinders unsuitable for women.

“It is an affront to womanhood and that too by a Government of India undertaking,” a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi said, pulling up the government entity for “disrespecting” women.

As the woman had attained the age of 63, well beyond the age of superannuation, the court noted that she had litigated for decades and directed IOC to pay a lump sum of ₹12 lakh in compensation.

“Day in and day out, when men are not at home, it is the women who lift gas cylinders in the house and change it. And you denied her appointment just because she is a lady. This is disrespect to womanhood,” the bench said.

The woman petitioner, Sumitra, was a resident of Karnal in Haryana and belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. She had sought employment as a helper when the LPG bottling plant opened in Karnal in 1988. She was one of the 49 persons shortlisted for the job. Although educationally qualified and meeting all the requirements, she did not figure among the 43 selected candidates. Later, she was told that she had been refused employment because she was a woman.

The IOC, in its response before the top court, said, “As the nature of the job and atmosphere and odd working hours in the company of the males was such that petitioner being lady was not considered fit for the job.”

Sumitra had first approached the trial court, where she won a decree in 1990 directing IOC to absorb her in any post other than that of a labourer. This judgment was challenged by the IOC before the Punjab & Haryana high court, which overturned the decision in October 2025. It was this order that Sumitra challenged in the top court.

The court noted the long litigation that the woman had to endure, in addition to the discrimination at the hands of IOC. The petition, filed through advocate Surya Nath Pandey, stated that gender was the only ground for denying her employment.

The bench observed, “In India, every day we say a woman is a goddess, respect her. This is a fit case for compensation.”

At one point during the hearing, the IOC lawyer was even willing to agree to mediation. However, the court was not interested in keeping the matter pending after going through the facts of the case and noting the considerable delay of over three decades since the litigation began.