Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By consent, matter is taken on board for final hearing at the stage of admission. 3. This appeal is preferred by original applicants against the judgment dt.19.12.2007 passed by the Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, Satara in E.S.I. Application No.5 of 2005 dismissing applicants' application under section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 4. The appellants are the proprietory/partnership firms engaged in filling petroleum products in the vehicles of customers. The Officer of the respondent Corporation visited their petrol pumps for making inquiry whether the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is applicable to them or not. Because of that, on the basis of apprehension, the respondents may make applicable the said Act to them, the appellants filed application under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for declaration that the said Act is not applicable to them on various grounds. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record and judgment of various courts and specifically judgment in the matter of Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Bhag Singh 1988 LAB I.C. 1170 held that the activities carried out by the appellants are covered under the said Act. At the same time, the Trial Court held that the present application is filed by appellants u/s 75 of the said Act on the apprehension that the respondent may take action against them and, therefore, there was no cause of action to the appellants for filing the application u/s.75 of the said Act. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the activities carried out by the appellants are covered by the said Act. He submits that the appellants are the dealers dealing in filling petroleum product in the vehicles of customers. They are receiving petrol/diesel from the Oil Corporation. It is unloaded in the underground tanks of the petrol pumps situated at the respective premises of the applicants and then petrol/diesel is delivered to the customers as per their demands. Petrol/diesel is uplifted from the underground tanks with the help of electric motor for dispensing same to the customers. There is no change in the petrol/diesel while delivering it to the customers. Petrol/diesel is uplifted from the underground tanks with the help of electric motor for dispensing same to the customers. There is no change in the petrol/diesel while delivering it to the customers. As per the contract between the applicants and the Corporation as well as the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, no petrol pump can mix any material or make process on the said goods. So, there is no "manufacturing process" in their business as per ESI Act or the Factories Act. He further submits that in view of notification issued by the Maharashtra State Government dated 22.1.1983 under the Factories Act, they cannot be covered for payment under the Employees' State Insurance Act. On the basis of these submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants states that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation vehemently opposed the present First Appeal. He submits that our High Court as well as Punjab and Haryana High Court categorically held that petrol pumps are covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Therefore, there is no substance in the present appeal and the same is to be dismissed with costs. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Trial court and other relevant documents as well as the authority in the matter of Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Bhag Singh (Supra) and Gateway Auto Services, a Partnership Firm, Bombay-1 vs. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation and another 1981 LAB I.C. 49. At the first instance, I have noticed that the application filed by the appellants u/s 75 of the said Act itself is not maintainable for want of cause of action. In the present case, the Inspector of respondent visited petrol pump of some of the appellants for carrying out investigation whether the Act is applicable or not. Thereafter, neither respondent issued any notice to the appellants nor passed any order holding that they are covered under the said Act and yet on apprehension, the appellants filed an application u/s.75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and therefore, the Trial Court rightly observed in para 20 of the judgment that there is no cause of action to the appellants to file application u/s.75 of the said Act. 8. 8. The other point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that they are not carrying any manufacturing activities, is also not acceptable. The trial court held that the activities carried out by the appellants amounts to manufacturing process on the basis of full bench judgment in the matter of Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Bhag Singh (Supra). In that judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court after considering Judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Gateway Auto Services, a Partnership Firm, Bombay-1 vs. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation and another (Supra) held that the petrol pump activities are fully covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. 9. As the facts and circumstances of the present case are fully covered by these two judgments, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, First Appeal is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. In view of dismissal of First Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application. Same is also dismissed as infructuous.