Non-compliance with statutory deposit conditions and belated filing of appeals may lead to the denial of justice and dismissal of appeals.

1. Notice before admission was served. Both the appellant and the respondent Corporation are represented by counsel. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on both sides are heard.

2. M/s. Ran India Steels is the appellant in all the four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. Claims were made for the payment of contribution for two periods, the first one being the period from November 2005 to September 2006 and the second one being the period from October 2006 to September 2007. A sum of Rs.3,75,375/- was the amount claimed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation as contribution from the appellant for the first period and a sum of Rs.11,60,886/-was the amount claimed as contribution for the above said second period. As against the claims, the appellant filed E.S.I.O.P.Nos.60 of 2008 and 52 of 2008 respectively. Instead of depositing 50% of the claim amount as per the condition found in Section 75 (2-B) of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as the Act], relying on the proviso empowering the Court to waive the condition or reduce the amount to be deposited, the appellant filed two Interlocutory Applications in both the E.S.I.O.Ps. They were taken on file as I.A.Nos.75 of 2008 and 58 of 2008 respectively. Before taking up the E.S.I.O.Ps. for hearing on merits, the E.S.I. Court heard the Interlocutory Applications and after hearing, passed an order in each one of the Interlocutory Applications dismissing those applications holding that the appellant herein was not entitled to the relief of waiver sought for or reduction of the amount payable as a condition for challenging the claim. The said orders dismissing the Interlocutory Applications came to be passed on 30.06.2011. While dismissing the said Interlocutory Applications, the learned Judge of the E.S.I. Court granted 15 days time to make deposit in terms of the main clause of Section 75 (2-B) of the Act. Within the time granted therein, the appellant did not deposit the amount in either of the E.S.I.O.Ps. Resultantly, the E.S.I. Court chose to pass orders on 20.07.2011 to the following effect :

"Conditional order passed on 30.06.2011. 50% contribution amount not paid till date. Hence, this petition is closed".

3. Against the orders passed in the Interlocutory Applications and the E.S.I.O.Ps., the appellant has chosen to file the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. C.M.A.No.659 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.52 of 2008, C.M.A.No.660 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.58 of 2008 in E.S.I.O.P.No.52 of 2008, C.M.A.No.661 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.60 of 2008 and C.M.A.No.662 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.75 of 2008 in E.S.I.O.P.No.60 of 2008.

4. In all the appeals, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the E.S.I. Court, which chose to pass an order dismissing the Interlocutory Applications seeking waiver of the deposit contemplated under sub-section 2-B of Section 75 of the Act, ought to have given sufficient time to comply with the requirements of that Section and that the failure to grant sufficient time has resulted in denial of justice to the appellant, as the right of appeal available to the appellant has been taken away on the ground of non compliance of Section 75(2-B) of the Act. It is the further submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the advocate, who appeared for the appellant in the lower Court failed to inform the appellant regarding the last date on or before which the deposit had to be made in accordance with the orders passed in the Interlocutory Applications and that for the mistake committed by the counsel, the party should not be made to suffer.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellant deliberately avoided complying with the condition stipulated in sub-section 2-B of Section 75 of the Act while preferring an