' Petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Supervisor on 1-12-1992 by Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Bahawalpur (respondent No,1) but subsequently his services were terminated on the ground that his appointment was not made in accordance with rules vide Order No,1436, dated 11- 6-1995, passed by respondent No,1. The petitioner challenged this order, before N.I.R.C., Lahore. His appeal was allowed and he was reinstated but without back benefits vide order, dated 22-12-1997 (Annexure B).
2. Petitioner has claimed back benefits by moving the instant Constitutional petition on two-fold grounds:--
(i) That the petitioner was in service till 14-6-1995 when termination order was passed, and
(ii) that he remained unemployed and jobless since his termination till date.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate appearing for respondent No,1 has opposed the instant petition inter alia on the following grounds:--
(1) That several other alternate legal remedies were available to the petitioner. He has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court without availing these remedies hence the instant writ petition is incompetent on this score alone;
(2) that factual controversy whether the petitioner had been doing some job during the period between his termination and reinstatement is a question of fact which requires deeper probe and recording of evidence which cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction, hence the petitioner is not maintainable.
4. Having given my careful consideration to the arguments propounded by the petitioner who has competently addressed this Court at length and the learned counsel for the respondent No,1, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot seek the relief by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing the writ petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 because it is now well-settled that while Article 199 of the Constitution confers a wide power on the High Court there are equally well-settled limitations on the exercise of such power. One of them which is relevant for the present case is that where an alternate and efficacious remedy is available, Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is barred, and this is so held in 1990 SCMR 999 and 1995 PLC 706. In the instant case while reinstating the petitioner N.I.R.C. Deprived him of back benefits vide order, dated 22-12-1997. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by that order, he could file an appeal before Full Bench of N.I.R.C. But he did not avail that remedy as provided under section 22-D of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.. Even otherwise, a suit for recovery of outstanding salaries or back benefits (if any) is also an efficacious remedy but the petitioner has not agitated his claim before the proper forum. It is also significant to note that the factual controversy which requires adjudication whether the petitioner remained unemployed/jobless from the date of his termination till the date. Of his reinstatement, is a question of fact which demands a deeper probe and recording of evidence because the petitioner has not placed any material whatsoever, which may tend to establish his plea/assertion that he remained unemployed and jobless during the said period, and the exercise of recording of evidence cannot be done in Constitutional petition like the instant one and this is so held in 1994 MLD 1241, PLD 1994 Karachi 89 and 1994 CLC 183.
5. I am, therefore, constrained to hold that this writ petition is not competent and merits dismissal.
Order accordingly.