DECISION ' This appeal is directed against a decision given by the learned Fifth Labour Court on 10th January 1981, dismissing the grievance petition submitted to it by the appellant workman complaining against the refusal of the respondent-Corporation to allow him to resume his work, The sole ground on which the said grievance petition has been dismissed is that it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in section 25-A, I. R.
0.
2. The grievance of the appellant is that when he reported for duty to the respondent-Corporation on 18th August 1979, on return from sanctioned leave, he was not allowed to resume his duties. The appellant thereupon, on 20th August 1979, brought his grievance in writing to the notice of the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. The grievance petition, thereafter, had to be filed within two and a half months of the service of the said notice. However, it was filed on 27th January 1980, i. e. More than five months later. It was contended by Mr. Salim Raza, the learned Representative of the appellant that the appellant's application, dated 20th August 1979, should not be construed as the required notice as it was merely a representation to the authorities. Section 25-A, I. R.
0. Does not prescribe any form for the notice to be given by an aggrieved workman to his employer. All that it requires is that the notice should be in writing and by means thereof the grievance of the workman should be brought to the notice of the employer. The representation, dated 20th August 1979, fulfils both these requirements. It thus had to be considered as the re quite notice. Since admittedly the appellant did not submit his grievance petition to the learned Labour Court within two and a half months of the service of the above grievance notice upon the employer the grievance petition was time-barred and was thus rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court. I would, accordingly dismiss this appeal in limine.