2. The case of the appellant is that his services were terminated orally with effect from 2-5-1981 whereas the case of the respondent is that the appellant left service of his own accord on 1-1-81.
This is not the case of the respondent that the appellant tendered any resignation. The learned lower Court has said that the appellant did not produce any corroborative evidence in support of his oral statement. This is not correct. The appellant examined P. W. 2 also when supported his case. In- the absence of any resignation the learned lower court was not justified in believing the respondent that the appellant had of his own accord left service. The attendance of the appellant must have been marked in the attendance register but the same was not produced by the respondent who is the custodian of it to show that the appellant after 1-1-81 was never marked present.
3. It is contended in the written statement of the respondent that Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 is not applicable but no reason has been given for it. The same Act applies. According to section 17 of the said Act, section 12 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance of 1968 :subject to the other provisions of the Act of 1968 applies if the number of workers was 10 or more. The appellant as P. W. 1 stated that at the time of his oral termination the number of workers was eleven. This evidence was not rebutted. According to section 21 of the News--paper Employees Act, 1973 one month's written notice of termination I necessary if total period of continuous service is not less than three month but less than two years. The appellant was re-employed in November, 198 as stated by him in his first statement. His service was terminated in May, 1981 meaning that he had continuously served for more than 5 month So one month notice in writing or one month pay in lieu of notice and passing of order of termination in writing were necessary. The order of ter-- mination was therefore illegal.
4. Since the respondent 'failed to prove by producing the attendence register that the appellant left service of his own accord on 1-1-81 the appellant is entitled to his pay from 1-1-81 to 2-5-81.
5. As a result of the observation made above I accept the appeal ex pane and setting aside the decision of the learned lower Court direct the re-instatement of the appellant in service with back benefits from 1-1-81 onward.