Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The above captioned appeals lay a challenge to an order dated 24.12.2001 and order dated 30.01.2003 dismissing two petitions filed by the appellant under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. In the petition filed before the learned Judge ESI Court which is the subject matter of FAO No. 88/2002 a challenge was made to an order dated 5/11.12.95 passed by the competent authority under the ESI Act 1948 followed by a letter dated 27/28.5.1996 stating that the demand raised vide order dated 5/11.12.1995 has to be satisfied. In the petition filed before the learned Judge ESI Court which is the subject matter of FAO No. 375/2003 challenge was to an order dated 13.5.1996.

.2. Since the facts of both cases are near identical, at the hearing held on 5.5.2008, learned Counsel for the parties stated that reference may be made to the facts of FAO No. 88/2002. It may be stated that the dispute between the parties pertained to 2 LPG bottling plants of the appellant at Tikri Kalan Delhi and Shakurbasti Delhi. The dispute pertains to the employment of certain casual workers engaged through independent contractors to execute works relating to cutti