Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard Sri Prabhakar Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal filed by the insurance company under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 has questioned the legality and correctness of judgement dated 30.8.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, whereby a compensation of Rs. 3,22,920.00/- alongwith 8% simple interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants. Respondent Nos. 1 has died during pendency of this appeal, leaving behind respondent No. 2 as the sole claimant.

3. Sri Prabhakar Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant has primarily argued this appeal on the ground that Rule 28 of the Workmen Compensation Rules envisages a mandatory duty upon the Workmen Compensation Commissioner to adjudicate the claims by framing and recording the issues upon which the decision of the case is rendered but in the present case the Commissioner having failed to do so has committed a breach of the mandatory requirement of law which renders the impugned judgment as bad in the eye of law.

4. Rules 28 of Workman Rules 1924 is precisely the premise upon which the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant rests, therefore, the relevant rule is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :

“28. Framing of issues.—(1) After considering any written statement and the result of any examination of the parties, the Commissioner shall ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues upon which the right decision of the case appears to him to depend.

(2) In recording the issues, the Commissioner shall distinguish between those issues which in his opinion concern points of facts and those which concern points of law.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the term ‘shall’ used in the aforesaid rule and has thus argued that the language of the statutory rule casts a mandatory obligation on the Workmen Commissioner to frame the issues so that evidence is led by the parties for adjudication of claim in an effective and impartial manner.

6. The ground urged before this Court can be looked at from two angles. Firstly, as to whether the statutory rule casts a mandatory duty upon the Workmen Commissioner to frame the issues, breach whereof would vitiate the judgment rendered and secondly, as to whether the ground urged before this Court with respect to failure of framing issues, unless it results into a prejudice would be inconsequential and thus such a ground even if it is assumed that duty is cast under the rule, the judgment would nevertheless stand and infirmity attached to the same, as argued, would become of no legal consequence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant while construing Rule 28 has also invited attention of this Court to Rule 32 and on the basis of a conjoint reading of these two rules, it was argued that framing of issues between the parties is a condition precedent for rendering a judgment on a civil dispute though the proceedings may be summary in nature under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.

8. It may be noted that the Code of Civil Procedure has a restricted application in terms of Rule 41 of the Workmen Compensation Rules but the underlying principles can be taken aid of, insofar as the requirement of framing of issues in the disputes of civil nature is concerned. Order XIV Rule 1 provides us some guidance. It is manifest from Order XIV Rule 1 that an issue is framed having regard to the pleadings which are relied upon as facts by one party and the other party denies the same.

9. This is a guiding principle for framing issues between the parties. The facts at hand have posed a different difficulty. In the instant case the claimant consequent upon the death of deceased Babloo Lodhi filed a claim petition under Section 3/4 Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. There is