03.09.2026 Court No.13 Item No.2 AP MAT 1415 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Sogra Bibi Vs. Vijay Shree Pvt. Limited & Ors. Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta Ms. Senjuti Sengupta Mr. Rijuan Mandal …for the Appellant. Mr. Soumya Mazumder, Senior Advocate Mr. S.K. Singh Mr. R.K. Dubey …for the Respondent No.1. Mr. D.N. Roy Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee Ms. Sneha Chatterjee … for the State. 1. The appeal is directed against an order dated 3rd August, 2026 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in CPAN 1947 of 2025. The order was passed as an interim measure in the contempt proceedings. The principal order of which contempt was alleged dated 25th September, 2025 passed in WPA 22093 of 2025. By the said order the Court admitted a writ petition challenging the orders of the Controlling Authority dated 28th February, 2024 and the Appellate Authority dated 4th September, 2025. 2. The writ petition was admitted on prima facie finding that the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority had in undue haste and without appropriate documentary evidence allowed claim of gratuity payable to the appellant/mother of the deceased workman. 3. It appears that after the said order was placed before the Controlling Authority a cheque for the gratuity 2 amount was already handed over to the appellant/ mother of the deceased workman on 25th September, 2025. Upon receipt of the Single Bench’s order, the Controlling Authority vide order dated 7th July, 2026 asked the appellant to return the aforesaid cheque within 30 days. The writ petition as disposed of vide a judgement and/or order dated 21st May, 2026, remanding the matter back to the Appellate Authority for disposal of the employer’s appeal afresh. 4. The contempt application was filed by the employer alleging that the appellant refused to refund and return the cheque received by her towards the gratuity payment in terms of the first order passed by the first authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the cheque was received on the same day when the interim order was passed by the Single Bench on 25th September, 2025 and the appellant had no way of knowing the proceedings as she was not served. 6. This Court is, however, of the view that the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act have acted in undue haste in handing over the cheque to the appellant towards gratuity payable to her on account of her late son’s service. 7. Across the Bar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client is not in a position to refund the said sum of money. 8. The said contention is not acceptable to this Court. 3 9. There is also a legal issue that arises as to whether the impugned order dated 3rd August, 2026 is at all appealable since no penalty has been imposed in the contempt proceedings. 10. This Court is, however, reminded a judgement of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hastings Mills Ltd. Vs. Hira Singh & Ors reported in 1977 SCC OnLine Cal 234 where it was held that interim orders can be passed in contempt proceedings. 11. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the impugned order calls for no interference since appropriation by the appellant a disputed sums of gratuity payable would frustrate the entire proceedings initiated by the employer and the final order passed in WPA 22093 of 2025. 12. Hence, MAT 1415 of 2026 fails and hereby dismissed. Consequently, CAN 1 of 2026 is also dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as costs. 14. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Anuj Singh, J.)