JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI to the Opp.parties and after hearing the parties may also be pleased to hold that the RSP/SAIL have violated the provisions of the Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1979 and the Govt. Guidelines. And This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct the Opp.parties to carry forward the percentage of Reserve vacancies for Ex-servicemen in all category of posts/services filled-up by RSP/SAIL from 1988 till date and appoint the petitioners in such future/present vacancies by accepting their experiences, length of defence service, qualifications, Diplomas and Trade Proficien¬cy Certificates issued to them by the Defence authorities. And This Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to direct the RSP/SAIL to pay forthwith the full pay of the petitioners for their illegal training period as Khalasis/Semi Skilled Workers and as such regularise their training period; And This Hon’ble Court besides the above, also be pleased to direct the RSP/SAIL to consider their applications and promote the petitioners in departmental promotion/Appointments by accept¬ing and recognizing their Defence Service experiences, qualifica¬tions, Diplomas and Proficiency Certificates and also promote all the petitioners from S-1 Grade Posts to S-5 Grade Posts in ac¬cordance to the 5th pay commission report; And This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct the RSP/SAIL to provide quarter/residential accommodation to the petitioners to live with their families while serving in RSP and consider/allow their applications for grant of House Building Advances as per law; And This Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to pass any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, equity and fair play by considering the precarious financial strains of Ex-servicemen who have served to protect the Mother land by sparing their most valuable periods in their lives. And The petitioners, as in duty bound shall every pray”. 2. The petitioners are all ex-servicemen, who after ren¬dering service for about 15 to 20 years were discharged from Defence service between the period 1988-1996. None of them is below Matriculate while some of them are even Law Graduates. They were appointed in different ranks such as Sergeants, Corporals, Havildars, Naiks etc. 2. The petitioners are all ex-servicemen, who after ren¬dering service for about 15 to 20 years were discharged from Defence service between the period 1988-1996. None of them is below Matriculate while some of them are even Law Graduates. They were appointed in different ranks such as Sergeants, Corporals, Havildars, Naiks etc. in Indian Air Force and Indian Army and were working as Equipment Assistants, Weapon fitters, Radio fritters, Air Frame fitters, Electrical fitters etc. having acquired in-service technical qualification like Diploma in mechanical Engineering/technology, Radio electronics etc. The petitioners, all of whom had held Group-C posts in defence serv¬ice, after discharge, registered their names in their respective Zilla Sainik Boards for sponsing their names against reserved posts for Ex-servicemen falling vacant under different establish¬ments in the State of Orissa, on due requisition, as envisaged under Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1979 Rules’). As per the case of the petitioners no such requisition was ever made by any of the establishments in the State of Orissa, except by the Rourkela Steel Planting one or two occasions. The Rourkela Steel Plant vide its requisition letter No.130 dated 31.3.1997 requisitioned to the Zilla Sainik Boards for sponsoring names of ex-servicemen to fill up 50 posts of Khalasi (Semi-skilled work¬ers) under certain terms and conditions including the condition of undergoing training for six months on a stipend of Rs.1100/- per month. Considering their poor financial condition the Zilla Sainik Boards sponsored names of the petitioners for the said posts. After successful completion of the training period, they were appointed as Khalasi/semi-skilled workers on a pay of Rs.2100/- per month. Their in-service technical qualifications and past experiences were not taken into consideration while giving them appointment and considering their eligibility for promotion and allotment of residential quarters. Hence the Writ Petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. In their joint counter affidavit opp.party Nos.2 and 3 contended that, 52 ex-servicemen including the petitioners were recruited to the posts of semi-skilled workers (trainees) under a special recruitment drive exclusively made for ex-servicemen in the year 1997 by opp.Party No.3. As the petitioners were found suitable for the posts, appointment orders were issued to them stipulating the terms and conditions of service which they ac¬cepted and joined as semi-skilled workers (trainees). As the petitioners were found suitable for the posts, appointment orders were issued to them stipulating the terms and conditions of service which they ac¬cepted and joined as semi-skilled workers (trainees). In this writ petition they seek promotion on out of turn and allotment of higher types of quarters in their favour contrary to the rules, norms and policy of Opp.Party No.3. Since the petitioners are workmen, they ought to have ventilated their grievances before the appropriate Industrial Forum. As such the writ petition is not maintainable. It is the further case of these Opp.Parties that after the petitioners became employees of Rourkela Steel Plant they are to be governed by the rules and procedures of the said establishment. They cannot be considered for promotion on out of turn basis. They also cannot be provided with better residential accommodation than their counter-parts. It is specif¬ically averred in their counter by opp.Party Nos.2 and 3 that the policy of sanction of House Building Advance to the employees of Rourkela Steel Plant is no more in vogue. Accordingly they pressed to dismiss the case. Learned counsel for the Opp.parties Nos.2 and 3 submitted that since the petitioners are all workmen as per the definition contained under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act (here-in-after referred to as ‘I.D. Act’) and they seek promotion on out of turn basis and better residential accommodation than their counter-parts, they ought to have ventilated their grievances before appropriate Industrial Forum and not before this Court. So the case should be dismissed in limine. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the writ petitioners challenge the inaction of the R.S.P./SAIL in not recruiting Ex. servicemen to different categories of posts fall¬ing vacant for them as per the provision contained under 1979 Rules, besides claiming their promotion and other service bene¬fits. So, this Court and not any Industrial Forum can mitigate the grievances of the petitioners. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners are workmen. servicemen to different categories of posts fall¬ing vacant for them as per the provision contained under 1979 Rules, besides claiming their promotion and other service bene¬fits. So, this Court and not any Industrial Forum can mitigate the grievances of the petitioners. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners are workmen. Industrial Dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act reads as follows :- “Industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employ¬ment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.” The expression “terms of employment” and “conditions of labour’ are wide enough to include dispute regarding promotion and residential accommodation. In the present case since the dispute is between employer and the workmen (petitioners) in connection with promotion and residential accommodation of the latter, it is an industrial dispute. So, the petitioners ought to have approached the appropriate Industrial Forum to ventilate their grievances. No doubt, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners the question that RSP/SAIL are not complying with 1979 rules in recruiting ex-servicemen to different posts cannot be decided in any Industrial Forum. But when the petitioners have been engaged themselves under the Rourkela Steel Plant, they cannot espouse the cause of ex-servicemen who are not in employ¬ment. Otherwise also, in absence of any specific instance showing violation of the 1979 rules by RSP/SAIL, it cannot be held that they violated any of the provisions of the said rules. As it appears,only to bring under the fold of writ jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners in the writ petition have added the prayer to hold that RSP/SAIL have violated the provisions of 1979 rules and the Government guidelines. In the result the writ petition stands dismissed being not maintainable. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.