1. GULZAR AHMED, J. --- Petitioner was an employ of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. He retired on attaining superannuation on 31.12.2006. Prior to his retirement petitioner's service was terminated by the respondent pursuant to which grievance petition was filed by him. The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 25.02.1991 directed reinstatement of petitioner in service with full back benefits. Petitioner filed C.P. No, D-605 of 2003 complaining that he has not been paid full back benefits, which was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 06.09.2005. Petitioner thereafter made successive applications in the said petition, the last one of which being CMA No, 15645 of 2011 was heard and decided by learned Division Bench of High Court vide impugned order dated 07.04.2017, dismissing the same. The High Court, in its impugned order, has dealt with the matter of claim of petitioner, the relevant portion of which is as follows:-- "A perusal of the record shows that the petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 08.05.2005, whereby the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back benefits, the petitioner was reinstated and subsequently retired on 31.12.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid full back benefits as directed by this Court. In the order dated 16.08.2011 this Court directed the alleged contemnor No, 1 to hear the petitioner and prepare comprehensive report regarding dues which were to be paid to the petitioner as back benefits, more particularly his promotion as done with other employees of this batch. It was also observed that such exercise shall be completed within a period of one month.
2. Pursuant to the above order of this Court, a compliance report was submitted by the alleged contemnor in which he stated that they had heard the petitioner and examined the relevant documents and noted that the petitioners' upgradation from pay Group-IV to pay Group-V was due from 01.07.1999. Accordingly, such approval of competent authority was obtained and up- gradation order of the petitioner from PG-IV to 'PG-V was notified on 13.09.2011 w,e,f, 01.07.1999. He has also mentioned that in the minutes of the meeting, it is noted that the petitioner would be entitled to arrears as a consequence of up gradation and will also be eligible for difference of gratuity as well. On such conclusion, he stated, that except up-gradation. no other dues was found to be payable, and consequently such up-gradation benefits were paid to the petitioner.
3. A perusal of the order dated 20.09.2011 indicates that the petitioner was satisfied with the decision of Pakistan Steel Mills; end statement showing his satisfaction has been recorded by this Court in the above order.
4. We have also gone through the statement dated 16.02.2017 submitted on behalf of the respondent No, 1, which reads as under:-- "It is submitted on behalf of respondent No, 1 that pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 16.08.2010 the respondent No, 1 has already provided the relevant documents on 09.09.2010 photocopies whereof are also enclosed, regarding reinstatement and promotion of other employees involved in the case alongwith Mr. Mian Gul the petitioner in the above matter for the period upto 31.12.2006 who was retired on attaining the age of superannuation and in respect of other employees for the period thereafter.
5. It is submitted that the referred employees were reinstituted and given pay Group-IV and there was no further promotion till 31.12.2006. It is further submitted that "there was no up gradation of the post till 31.12.2006 inasmuch as up-gradation/promotion pursuant to CBA agreement of 2008, copy thereof is already on record, and also notified by Circular dated 04.08.2009 copy enclosed whereby relief was given to the workers mentioned herein even it was not applicable to the case of the petitioner, however, as a special case vide orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 16.08.2011 and 20.09.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court as a special case on humanitarian grounds the petitioner was given pay group-V and arrears were also paid to him. He was satisfied with such decision of Pakistan Steel as recorded in the order dated 20.09.2011. The petitioner is not entitled for any further amount and he has been paid all service dues. Detail is enclosed."
6. The grievance of the petitioner in respect of certain additional dues/benefits Is not borne out of any record and as far as his previous benefits are concerned, he was satisfied with the calculation of the same as is observed in the order dated 20.09.2011. We are mindful of the fact that this Court cannot go beyond the terms of disposal order recorded in the present proceedings.
7. In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons alluded above, we are not inclined to proceed any further in these proceedings. The listed application having no merits is accordingly dismissed."
2. The petitioner during his submissions contended that he ought to ,have been paid, back benefits upto grade PG-VII. We are altogether not satisfied as to how such grade could have been acquired by him. In the impugned order it is clearly noted that CBA agreement of 2008 was not applicable to the petitioner for that he stood retired on attaining superannuation on 31.12.2006. Nothing was shown by the petitioner to claim benefit of grade PG-VB. The petition is therefore, meritless. The same is dismissed and leave refused.