T.N. Singh, J.-1. Two short grounds are strongly urged with great vehemence by appellants' counsel to impugn the Award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Court.

2. Shri Sinha Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants, bas firstly submitted that the Award is vitiated for non-compliance by the Court below with the provisions of Rules 23 and 25 of the Workmens' Compensation (Madhya Pradesh) Rules, 1962, for short, the 'Rules', He has also submitted that the learned Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in making the Award by admitting in evidence medical certificates without the doctors being examined in proof thereof. Counsel has cited further case-law to which I shall advert in due course.

3. First question first. The first thing to be stated about the first contention of Shri Sinha firstly is that Rules 23 and 25 are not to be read as mandatory provisions. The reason why I say so is that the power to examine the applicant under Rule 23 or the power to bold a preliminary enquiry on an application under Rule 25 is the discretionary power, Still, what is, however, to be noted is that when the Commissioner takes action under Rule 26 and exercises his power thereunder, he