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 u