' Briefly, facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as salesman Incharge in Utility Stores Corporation, Islamabad, in 1976;, he applied for leave for a period from 1-10-1980 to 31-10- 1980, which was sanctioned by respondent No,2 and the petitioner handed over charge to one Shabbir Ahmed on 30-9-1980. On 5-10-1980, a notice was served upon him to explain the shortage of store and removal of certain documents pertaining to the store. Late, case F.I.R. No,141/81 dated 5-9-1981 under section 420/409/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered against the petitioner. However, after going through the trial, the petitioner was acquitted on 16-1-1993 by the learned Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi.
2. In the meantime, the petitioner applied for extension of leave on 31-10-1980 on medical grounds, submitted- further leave application on 8-11-1980. The said applications as claimed were sent through registered post. The petitioner reported for duty to respondent No, 2 in November, 1980, but was told that due to criminal case registered against him, is not allowed to resume his duties till the decision of the aforementioned case .
3. In December, 1988, as alleged, the petitioner came to know that his services have been terminated by respondent No,2 since 30-9-1980. He, therefore, filed a representation against his termination in the Ministry of Industries-respondent No,1. Respondent No,2 vide letter dated 5-6- 1989 required the petitioner to appear before him on 29-6-1989 and appeared accordingly, but no action was taken by the respondents Nos.2 and 3. Resultantly, the petitioner filed an application before the Review Board constituted vide Labour Division Notification No,LR.17 (6) 88 under the Chairmanship of Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad, as alleged all the respondents were summoned, respondent No,3 allegedly produced termination letter of the petitioner dated 1-10-1980 before the Board. The Board, ultimately held that the termination letter dated 1-10-1980 was arbitrary, capricious and devoid of any moral and legal sanction and did not fulfil the requirements of natural justice, hence the Board set aside the termination order dated 1- 10-1980 and recommended the respondent No,1 to re-employ the petitioner with the observation that the petitioner shall continue in service till the decision of criminal case pending against him.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a case before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Islamabad, for his reinstatement with full back benefits and the case is pending adjudication and the next date of hearing is also fixed there, further the petitioner has also filed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution and defamation and for prosecution in the criminal case against some of the respondents and that the suit is also pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Islamabad, for adjudication.
5. The jurisdiction possessed by the High Court under Article 199 is discretionary and it has been repeatedly held that the Court will not make a declaratory judgment where an adequate alternative remedy is available. The points raised in the writ petition have already been seized by the Labour Court.
6, In view of the above discussion and without touching the merits or demerits of the case, as the case of the petitioner is pending before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Islamabad, it is not appropriate at this stage to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.