DECISION I had remanded the appeal for sending the thumb-impression of respondent to handwriting expert for opinion. The order has been complied with, three documents were sent for opinion of the handwriting expert namely (1) Service Record, (2) a leaf from the Register of Wages, aod (3) a sample bearing the right and left hand thumb-impression of Abdul Jamil.
2. The opinion of the handwriting expert has been received. He is of the opinion that the thumb-impression on the service record of token No. 0205 is identical with the left hand thumb-impression of Abdul Jamil, respondent before me. While the impression on Document 'B' photograph i e. of wages could not be compared as the impression on the said 'B' was not clear and, therefore, could not be compared. On the opinion of the handwriting expert one thing becomes clear, that is, the respondent joined the services of the appellant-company on the 6th of January, 1972 as a Fitter.
The services were, therefore, rightly terminated by the appellant on the 14th of February 1972. Mr. Ch. M. Maarif, for the respondent, however, submitted that because of the absence of the opinion of the handwriting expert on the document 'B' it became doubtful if the impression on document 'A' is that of the respondent. The handwriting expert has not expressed any such doubt. He is quite definite and has given reasons for his opinion. I would accepti his opinion, and set aside the Award as the respondent's services were termi-| nated before he had become permanent. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.