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 cutting grass, planting trees, wood work repair (carpentry) and repair of the boundary wall of the two complexes.

3. Undisputed position is that the appellant provides better medical facilities to its employees than what is available under the ESI Act 1948 and hence has obtained an exemption under Section 90 of the ESI Act 1948 from paying any contribution under the said Act.

4. Thus, for the employees of the appellant on its pay rolls and in respect of whom benefit of medical facilities is made available by the appellant no contribution is payable under the ESI Act 1948. But, if the appellant does not extend the benefit of its medical facility to an employee or a category of employees, the appellant would be liable to pay contribution under the ESI Act 1948, but only for such employees who are covered under the said Act.

5. The dispute between the parties surfaced when an inspecting team from the office of the Employee State Insurance Commissioner inspected the two bottling plants of the appellant and noted that certain workmen were engaged in cutting grass, pruning and planting trees, executing carpentry work for repairing wooden fixtures and carrying out masonry work i.e. repairing existing structures. The names of these employees were not entered in the rolls of the appellant i.e. neither in the wage register nor in the attendance register. When an Explanationn was demanded from the appellant as to why names of these persons were not entered in the statutory registers maintained by the appellant, response was that these workmen were deployed at the site by independent contractors to whom the appellant had awarded different works. It was the case of the appellant that the works in question were not connected with the principal work being undertaken at the units i.e. bottling LPG gas in cylinders and that the works were neither incidental to or preliminary to or connected even remotely with the main work at the two units. It was stated that the persons were deputed by independent contractors to whom various works were awarded and that the appellant did not exercise any supervisory control over the workmen. That none of the workmen was answerable to the appellant. That payments were made to the independent contractors as per work order issued to them and as per the contract after appellant was satisfied that the necessary works were executed.

.6. Even to a lay man it would be apparent that the issue had to be decided with reference to the work contract awarded by the appellant to the contractors and the focus of the inquiry had to be in relation to Section 2(9), Section 2(13) and Section 2(17) of the ESI Act 1948 which define "employee", "immediate employee" and "principal employer" respectively. The nature of the works being executed had to be consider