JUDGMENT : Susanta Chatterji, J. - The present writ petition is at the instance of 48 petitioners who are claiming to be employees in different capacities under the Superintending Engineer, Telecommunication Circle, Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar. They have collectively filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, that the opposite parties should be directed to pay Rs. 400/- per month to the Junior Engineers and Supervisors-C and Rs. 120/- to Class IV staff and Rs. 240/- to other categories of staff mentioned in the chart as Thermal Allowance w.e.f. August 29, 1984 plus Rs. 100/- per month as conveyance allowance to each worker irrespective of grade/pay scale w.e.f. August 29,1984. 2. It is stated in detail that the petitioners were recruited by the O.S.E.B. in different categories, namely, Technicians, Junior Engineers, Foreman, Clerks 'A' and B, Draftsmen and different unskilled Class-IV posts. They were appointed under the Telecommunication Circle headed by the Superintending Engineer (S.E.), Bhubaneswar under the direct control of O. S. E. B. The said Circle has six Divisions. The petitioners were posted in Load and Despatch (C.D.) Telecommunication Division headed by the Executive Engineer at Talcher Thermal Power Station (T.T.P.S.) on the dates indicated in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 3. It is stated that T.T.P.S., which was under the O.S.E.B., was taken over by the National Thermal Power Corporation (N.T.P.C.) w.e.f. June 1,1995. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that due to unhygienic condition in the Power Plant and its vicinity on account of pollution of atmosphere by ash and coal dust, the Management granted Plant Operation Allowance and Plant Maintenance Allowance to the workmen and Engineers working in TTPS and the said allowance was subsequently called as Thermal Allowance. 5. Certain break-ups have been given in the writ petition. It is averred that as per the Order dated July 8, 1994 vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition, an award under the Industrial Disputes Act was implemented in respect of all the workers excluding the petitioners working under I.D. and Telecommunication Division, Talcher Thermal. 5. Certain break-ups have been given in the writ petition. It is averred that as per the Order dated July 8, 1994 vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition, an award under the Industrial Disputes Act was implemented in respect of all the workers excluding the petitioners working under I.D. and Telecommunication Division, Talcher Thermal. The petitioner's representation as per Annexure-B was forwarded and it was decided to examine the issue of Payment of Thermal Allowance and Conveyance Allowance and Thermal Allowance had been sanctioned for the period from August 29, 1984 to May 2, 1995 for the staff of L.D. Telecom Division stationed at T.T.P.S. Now there is dispute as to the rates of such allowances to be received by the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners are working in L.D. Telecommunication Division in T.T.P.S. premises and they were getting Plant Operation and Maintenance and Thermal Allowance at par with T.T.P.S. workers according to the basic pay prior to the award. On such priority they are asking for the relief as indicated above. 6. The writ petition is opposed by the opposite party Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. All the allegations made in the writ petition have been controverted. Besides denying and disputing the claim as made, threefold submission is made before us. First the petitioners are not the employees of the T.T.P.S. and they not-being parties to the award cannot ask of reliefs as claimed in the writ petition as the matter involves various disputed questions of fact and if their claim is justified, the petitioners can raise dispute and can get the relief as would be made available and admissible under law. 7. Mr. Dora appearing for the petitioners has strongly argued that the petitioners are the members of the Union which espouses the cause of the employees of the T.T.P.S. Being members of the Union, the petitioners can very well ask for the award pending u/s 18 of the I.D. Act and there is no bar and/or impediment to obtain the relief. There is no dispute about the entitlement. The entitlement is conceded by the Management but the quantum granted is less. If the services of the petitioners are at par with the employees of the T.T.P.S. there should not be any discrimination between them and the employees of the T.T.P.S. 8. Patiently we have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. The entitlement is conceded by the Management but the quantum granted is less. If the services of the petitioners are at par with the employees of the T.T.P.S. there should not be any discrimination between them and the employees of the T.T.P.S. 8. Patiently we have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. We have perused the averments made in the writ petition. Certain fundamental aspects are to be remembered. First if there is an award by the Industrial Court it is not the proper forum for the same. Secondly, if the petitioners are not parties to the award but they claim parity of their services with the employees of T.T.P.S., certainly it is open to the petitioners to raise another industrial dispute and the disputes can be decided by the proper forum. It is not for the Writ Court to enter into the disputed questions of fact because the matter has to be decided by admitting evidence. Thirdly as is submitted if the entitlement is not in dispute but the quantum is only questioned, it has to be considered whether relief is to be asked for u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. All these questions are vague questions of facts and law. 9. This Court will certainly protect the rights of the parties and in appropriate cases shall issue mandamus commanding the opposite parties, who have the obligations to grant reliefs. If it appears that the obligation to make payment and the entitlement of the petitioners to receive are dependent upon effective adjudication by a proper forum by admitting evidence of both sides as to the allegations and counter allegations, the Writ Court will be reluctant to entertain the matter. 10. On perusal of the materials and on consideration of the facts as indicated above, we are not inclined to adjudicate the matter in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. As we have indicated, the petitioners may exhaust their remedies before the proper forum. We dismiss the writ petition accordingly. We, however, make it clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioners to seek remedy as admissible and available to them otherwise in the proper forum. No costs. D.M. Patnaik,J. 11. I agree Final Result : Dismissed