JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This appeal has been filed by an employer under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 against the order dated 24-5-76 passed by the Commissioner, U. P. Lucknow, in proceedings under section 22 of the Act r.w. R. 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules 1924, instituted by the respondent workman. Against the respondent's claim of Rs. 9.800;'- the Commissioner has awarded him Rs. 1960/-. The employer, being aggrieved by this award of compensation. has preferred appeal in this Court. 2. The respondent's claim was that he was an employee of the appellant at the monthly wages of Rs. 168/-. In Feb. 1973. while working in the appellant mill on lining drive shaft the thumb of his left hand was crushed and he suffered injury which has made the said thumb stiff and thereby unserviceable. As stated above for this injury he claimed the compensation of Rs. 9,800; -. 3. In its written statement the appellant did not dispute the fact of accident, and also the fact that the respondent had suffered injury in the thumb of the left hand. It was .asserted that only a contusion had occurred which subsided without leaving any after effect and earning capacity of the respondent had not been affected. It was pleaded that the injury resulted only in temporary disablement for which the respondent was paid Rs. 32.74. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that no compensation was payable to the respondent. 4. In support of his case the respondent filed medical certificate dated 20-6-1974 issued by Dr. Bhim Sen, PMS Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki in which it was stated that the thumb of the left hand had become permanently stiff and therefore unserviceable. According to Dr. Bhim Sen the respondent's earning capacity had been reduced by 20 per cent. This medical certificate ws denied on behalf of the appellant. 5. On 13-1-1975 when the case came up before the Commissioner, statement was made on behalf of the respondent that he would not lead any evidence. Thereupon a similar statement was made on behalf of the appellant also. Thus no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of either party. 6. Relying upon the medical certificate produced by the respondent the Commissioner held that on account of the injury reported by Dr. Bhim Sen the respondent's earning capacity had been reduced by 20 per cent. Thereupon a similar statement was made on behalf of the appellant also. Thus no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of either party. 6. Relying upon the medical certificate produced by the respondent the Commissioner held that on account of the injury reported by Dr. Bhim Sen the respondent's earning capacity had been reduced by 20 per cent. On this finding he came to the conclusion that the respondent should get a compensation of Rs. 1960/-. With these findings he passed the order impugned in the present appeal. 7. The above order of the Commissioner has been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant primarily on the ground that there was no admissible evidence on record on the basis of which it could be held that the respondent's earning capacity had been reduced by 20 per cent and, therefore, the Commissioner committed manifest error in holding that the respondent's earning capacity had been so reduced. According to the learned counsel the medical certificate produced on behalf of the respondent had been denied on behalf of the appellant and the same could not be relied upon until its genuineness and contents had been proved through statement on oath of Dr. Bhim Sen. The submission requires consideration of certain provisions of the W. C. Act and the rules framed thereunder. 8. S. 23 of the Act provides as follows : - "23. Powers and Procedure of Commissioners. - The Commissioner shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (5 of 1908), for the purpose of Lakin; evidence on oath (which such Commissioner is hereby empowered to impose) and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects and the Commissioner shall be deemed to be Civil Court for all the purposes of S. 195. and of Chapter XXXV of the Criminal P. C. 1898 (5 of 1898)." (emphasis supplied)*. 9. Under this provision the Commissioner has been sepcifically authorised to administer oath while taking evidence of witnesses. The method of recording evidence is prescribed under section 25. Under this provision the Commissioner is not required to record evidence in extenso. Instead, he may prepare a brief memorandum of the substance of the evidence. Such memorandum is, however, required to be written and signed by the Commissioner with his own hand. The method of recording evidence is prescribed under section 25. Under this provision the Commissioner is not required to record evidence in extenso. Instead, he may prepare a brief memorandum of the substance of the evidence. Such memorandum is, however, required to be written and signed by the Commissioner with his own hand. If the Commissioner is prevented from making such memorandum himself he has been authorised under the first proviso to the Section to have the memorandum prepared from his dictation. In this case the Commissioner shall have to record reasons for his inability to prepare the memorandum himself. The second proviso to S. 25 prescribed an exception to the main provision. It lays down that the evidence of medical witness shall be taken down as nearly as may be word for word. In other words, the evidence of the medical witness has to be recorded in extenso. In exercise of the power conferred u/ s. 32 the W.C. Rules 1924 have been framed. Part v. of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner. R. 20 refers to the making of the application under section 22. R. 21 refers to the filing of documents. The examination of the applicant is prescribed under R. 23 which reads as follows : "23. Examination of Applicant - (1) On receiving an application of the nature referred to in S. 22. the Commissioner may examine the applicant on oath, or may send the application to any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf and direct such officer to examine the applicant and his witnesses and forward the record thereof to the Commissioner. (2) The substance of any examination made under sub-rule (1) shall be recorded in the manner provided for the recording of evidence in S. 25." (emphasis supplied)'. 10. Under the above rule the Commissioner is authorised to examine the applicant on oath. If after considering the application and the examination of the applicant on oath under R. 23 the Commissioner is of the opinion that no case has been made out he may dismiss the application summarily under R. 24. Where the Commissioner does not dismiss the application summarily under R. 24 he may, under R. 25, call upon the applicant to produce evidence in support of his application before calling upon any other party. Where the Commissioner does not dismiss the application summarily under R. 24 he may, under R. 25, call upon the applicant to produce evidence in support of his application before calling upon any other party. If even this further evidence does not make out a case against the employer the application may be dismissed under this provision. When a prima facie case has been made out against the employer the Commissioner is required to send notice of the claim to the employer under R. 26. 11. From the above provisions particularly S. 23 and R. 23 it is apparent that the evidence on the basis of which an order for compensation may be passed by the Commissioner has to be on oath. S. 23 and R. 23 both specifically refer to examination on oath. In the present case the applicant was not examined either under R. 23 or under R. 25. He did not examine any witness also. He merely placed on record the medical certificate of Dr. Bhim Sen. This medical certificate cannot take the place of examination on oath contemplated under section 23 and R. 23. In this view of the matter the learned counsel for the appellant is justified in saying that there was no evidence on record on the basis of which the Commissioner could order payment of compensation from the appellant. 12. The question whether an order for payment of compensation under the Act could be founded on medical certificate alone came up for consideration in some decided cases and in all these cases the view taken was that medical certificate without the statement on oath of the medical practitioner who issued it could not form the basis of the order. In Ali Akbar v. Java Bengal Line, Calcutta, (AIR 1937 Cal 697). the appeal to i Emphasis not supplied in copy - Ed.) (Emphasis not supplied in copy - Ed.) the High Court had been preferred by the employee whose claim for compensation had been rejected by the Commissioner. The order of the Commissioner was upheld by the High Court also because the High Court was of the opinion that the claimant had failed to substantiate his claim. In this case the Commissioner had sought assistance from a medical practitioner who sat with the Commissioner as an assessor. The medical practitioner was not examined on oath. The order of the Commissioner was upheld by the High Court also because the High Court was of the opinion that the claimant had failed to substantiate his claim. In this case the Commissioner had sought assistance from a medical practitioner who sat with the Commissioner as an assessor. The medical practitioner was not examined on oath. He merely gave a certificate and this certificate was relied upon by the Commissioner. The certificate also indicated that the claimant's case was false and, therefore, his claim was rejected. In respect of the procedure adopted by the Commissioner the High Court observed as follows at page 700 : "It is clearly upon the basis of that statement that the learned Commissioner made the order "Issue summons at 40%. How that percentage was estimated and on what basis the figure 40% was given rather than any other figure, we do not know. The fact remains however that it did undoubtedly in the first instance influence the mind of the learned Commissioner. that was entirely and definitely wrong. The learned Commissioner neither at that stage nor at any other stage should have paid any attention whatever to a medical certificate no matter how eminent the giver of it might be. It has been laid down in England on more than one occasion that medical certificates are not of themselves admissible in evidence. If the workman on his side and the employers on their side desire to put medical testimony before the Court, they must do so by calling medical witnesses......" 13. Without referring to the decision in Ali Akbar's case (AIR 1937 Cal 697) (supra) another Division Bench of the same High Court took the same view in Panchanan Ghose v. Bhaggu Bari ( AIR 1950 Cal 261 ). In para. 14 occurring at p. 263 of the report the learned Judges expressed themselves as follows : "Learned Advocate for the appellant has also urged that there was really no evidence of incapacity or disablement. Admittedly, no doctors were called and the learned Commissioner has acted upon medical certificates. Medical certificates are the worst form of hearsay evidence. They merely record what somebody who is not a witness has written.......... 14. In Merchant Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Alleppey v. Mohammad Kunju Appukka, (AIR 1956 Trav.Co. 55) a Division Bench of the Court observed in para. Admittedly, no doctors were called and the learned Commissioner has acted upon medical certificates. Medical certificates are the worst form of hearsay evidence. They merely record what somebody who is not a witness has written.......... 14. In Merchant Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Alleppey v. Mohammad Kunju Appukka, (AIR 1956 Trav.Co. 55) a Division Bench of the Court observed in para. 5 at p. 56 as follows : "That next irregularity we notice in the procedure adopted by the Commissioner is of the use he made of the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer in charge of Alleppey District Hospital. The Medical Officer was not examined. Indeed the certificate was issued as the result of a requisition from the Commissioner himself. The learned Advocate General contended that without examining the medical officer who issued the certificate the learned Commissioner ought not to have made that the basis for his award. The counsel for respondent I had to concede that the procedure was irregular and that on the materials in the case the award cannot be sustained.- - -" In the above case the medical certificate had been obtained by the Commissioner himself and even then it was held that the said medical certificate alone could not be relied upon for awarding compensation to the workman. 15. 1 am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the above cases. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri Sagir Ahmad, however, argued that the Evidence Act was not applicable to the proceedings before the Commissioner and therefore the Commissioner was merely required to comply with the principles of natural justice and these principles had been complied with when opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the appellant. According to the learned counsel the order of the Commissioner could not be assailed because it had been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It was further contended by the learned counsel that if the appellant was not satisfied with the medical certificate produced by the respondent it could resort to the procedure prescribed under section 11 of the Act and having failed to resort to this provision it is not open to the appellant to challenge the medical certificate produced by the respondent. In support of his argument that the principles of Evid. In support of his argument that the principles of Evid. Act were not to be imported to the present proceedings, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court.AIR 1957 S C 882 (Union of India v. T. R. Varma). 16. The Evid. Act has not been specifically applied to proceedings under the W. C. Act. In the Supreme Court case referred to above their Lordships observed in para It, at p. 885 as follows : "Now, it is no doubt true that the evidence of the respondent and his witnesses was not taken in the mode prescribed in the Evid. Act; but that Act has no application to enquiries conducted by tribunals, even though they may be judicial in character. The law requires that such tribunals should observe rules of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry and if they do so, their decision is not liable to be impeached on the ground that the procedure followed was not in accordance with that, which obtains in a Court of Law......... 17. In view of the above authority it is apparent that the Evid. Act was not applicable to the proceedings which have given rise to the present appeal. The principles of natural justice will, however. apply where a specific provision has not been made. Under the W. C. Act and the rules framed thereunder a specific mode has been prescribed for recording evidence. As noticed earlier the evidence has to be on oath. In the present case there is no evidence on oath on the basis of which compensation could be awarded under the Act. This authority is, therefore, of no assistance to the respondent. 18. S. II relied upon by the learned counsel follows S. 10 which refers to notice and claim. S. 10 prescribes that no claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the prescribed manner as soon as practicable after the happening of the accident. It further provides that the claim before the Commissioner has to be preferred within two years of the occurrence of the accident where the accident had not resulted in death of the workman. Where death has resulted the period of limitation is two years from the date of death. The procedure for giving of notice is prescribed in sub-sec. (2) of S. 10. Sub-sec. Where death has resulted the period of limitation is two years from the date of death. The procedure for giving of notice is prescribed in sub-sec. (2) of S. 10. Sub-sec. (1 I of S. I I prescribes as follows : "11 (1) Medical examination - Where a workman has given notice of an accident. he shall if the employer, before the expiry of three days from that time at which service of the notice has been effected, offers to have him examined free of charge by a qualified medical practitioner, submit himself for such examination, and any workman who is in receipt of a half-monthly payment under this Act shall, if so required, submit himself for such examination from time to time. Provided that a workman shall not be required to submit himself for examination by a medical practitioner otherwise than in accordance with rules made under this Act. or at more frequent intervals than may he prescribed." 19. The notice referred to in the above provision is the notice which a workman is required to give to the employer under section 10. After receipt of such a notice it is open to the employer to have the workman examined by his own medical practitioner. Sub-section 11) confers a right upon the employer. It does not confer any obligation upon him to have the examination done. The failure of the workman to have himself medically examined when so required by the employer under subsec. (1) is provided under sub-sec. (2). Under this sub-section the right of compensation remains suspended during the continuance of the refusal or obstruction of the medical examination. The section does not prescribe that if a medical certificate has been produced by the workman and the employer does not avail of the right conferred under sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 the medical certificate submitted by the employee will be deemed to be correct. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the failure of the appellant to have the respondent examined medically under sub-sec (1) of S. I I debars him from challenging the medical certificate produced by the respondent. 20. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the failure of the appellant to have the respondent examined medically under sub-sec (1) of S. I I debars him from challenging the medical certificate produced by the respondent. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the statement to the effect that no evidence shall be led was obviously made under some misapprehension and, therefore, the case may be remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh trial. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. There is no evidence to support the plea that the statement was made under misapprehension. Even before this court the course adopted by the respondent was tried to be justified with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court and S. 1 l of the Act. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the respondent is not entitled to remand of the case. 21. In view of the above the appeal is allowed and the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is set aside and the respondents application for compensation is dismissed. The cost of this appeal and of the proceedings before the Commissioner shall, however, be easy.