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 has to do so judiciously. In my opinion, there is a condition precedent envisaged under the law for exercise by the Commissioner of his jurisdiction under section 26 and I would, therefore, extract the provision in extenso :

"26. Notice to opposite party-If the Commissioner does not dismiss the application under rule 24 or rule 25, he shall send to the party from whom the applicant claims relief (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party), a copy of the application, together with a police of date on which he will dispose of the application and may call upon the parties to produce upon that date any evidence which they may wish to tender".

4. The Commissioner, by the language of Rule 26, is saddled with the duty to consider whether the requirement of Rules 23 and 2 are to be dispensed with in any particular case. Indeed, notice to the opposite party is ordered when the Commissioner does not dismiss the application under Rules 24 or 25, after examining the applicant or holding preliminary enquiry into the application. Indeed, before proceeding under Rule 26, if the Commissioner has not proceeded under Rule 23 or 25, he had to make an order dispensing with the "examination" or the "enquiry" contemplated thereunder. Although Rule 26 does nut explicitly contemplate such a requirement, it is so contemplate by the principles of natural justice and indeed by the constitutional imperatives of Arts. 39 (e), 39-A and 42. Indeed, any other view would make Rules 23 and 25 otiose besides impairing the right of parties to fair trial Recall I must, also, the duty of the Court not to construe any particular statutory provision in isolation but in its context and setting and to read it meaningfully to fulfil the object and purpose of the enactment itself.

5. It is necessary to refer not only to other rules of Part V (captioned "Procedure") but also to relevant provisions of the parent enactment, for short, the Act. Section 32 authorises the State Govt. to frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 3 and 4-A contemplate that liability of the employer to pay compensation for personal injury caused to the workman by accident arises contemporaneously with the event and for default in timely payment an award by the Commissioner for penalty and interest as well. Section 22, which deals with application for claim, also provide settlement by agreement between parties. Section 25 contemplates recording of "memorandum of substance of evidence" of witnesses except that of a medical witness whose evidence has to be "taken down as nearly as may be word for word". Rule 20 enables an application (claim) being presented by post but as per Rule 21 such document, on which the "relief is based", must accompany it. Although Rule 27 contemplates inter-parte hearing, frami