‘This is disrespect to womanhood’: SC awards Rs 12 lakh to woman denied LPG helper job

A woman who was denied a job at an Indian Oil Corporation Ltd LPG bottling plant because of her gender has finally secured a measure of relief, nearly years after she first challenged the decision.

The Supreme Court has directed Indian Oil Corporation Ltd to pay her Rs 12 lakh as lump-sum compensation, taking into account the fact that she has now reached the age of retirement and can no longer be appointed to the job she had sought.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi came down strongly on the corporation over the alleged gender-based denial, with the Court describing the treatment as an affront to womanhood and questioning the assumption that a woman could not perform work involving LPG cylinders.

‘This is disrespect to womanhood’: Supreme Court

During the hearing, Justice Aravind Kumar questioned the rationale behind denying the woman the appointment.

'You denied her appointment just because she is a lady? This is disrespect to womanhood,' the judge observed, according to the proceedings.

The Court noted that the woman had continued to pursue her legal claim even though she had since attained superannuation.

In view of that, rather than directing her appointment at this stage, the bench decided that compensation would be appropriate.

Justice Kumar also pointed out the irony in questioning women's ability to handle LPG cylinders.

'Day in, day out they lift gas cylinders in their house,' the Court observed, adding that when men are not around, women themselves change gas cylinders at home.

The bench further remarked that such treatment was particularly concerning because the employer in question is a Government of India undertaking.

'It is an affront to womanhood, we can say, and that too by a Government of India undertaking,' the Court said.

Why was the woman denied the job?

The petitioner, a resident of village Gudha, was one of 49 people recommended by a local committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner for employment at an Indian Oil Corporation LPG Bottling Plant.

She appeared for an interview for the position of casual khalasi, peon, or refilling helper.

However, while 43 other candidates were issued appointment letters, she was not appointed.

Her case before the courts was that she had fulfilled the prescribed eligibility requirements and that her exclusion was linked to her being a woman.

The issue subsequently became a prolonged legal battle, with different courts taking different views on the relief she was entitled to.

Trial Court had ruled in her favour

The Trial Court found that the petitioner satisfied the eligibility conditions prescribed for the position.

It also relied on the evidence of a defence witness, which indicated that her non-appointment was because she was a woman.

On that basis, the Trial Court directed her absorption as a casual employee in an administrative post or as a peon, rather than in a labourer position.

The decision, however, did not mark the end of the dispute.

First Appellate Court reversed the decision

The First Appellate Court subsequently overturned the Trial Court's decree.

It held that the woman's name had only been recommended and that she had never actually been selected for appointment. It also observed that the Trial Court had granted relief in respect of a post for which she had not been interviewed.