JUDGMENT CH. P. K. MISRA, J. —This appeal arises out of the order dated 31.10.2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compen¬sation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, in W.C. Case No. 735-D/99. Originally, the aforesaid case was disposed of by the Commissioner by his order dated 02.08.2000, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,60,641/- in favour of the claimants, who are respondents 1 to 3 in the present case. Thereafter, the appellant-Insurance Company filed a petition before the Commissioner to recall the said order on the ground that the claimants by suppressing mate¬rial facts committed fraud on the proceedings. However, the Commissioner by order dated 19.11.2001 refused to recall his previous order on the ground that he was not vested with power of review. Against the said order dated 19.11.2001, the Insurance Company filed a writ petition, being O.J.C. No. 1982 of 2002, before this Court, which was disposed of by judgment dated 21.08.2002 by quashing the award and remitting the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh disposal according to law by the end of October, 2002. After such remand, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order awarding a sum of Rs. 1,61,641/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards funeral expenses along with statutory interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30 days after the accident. 2. The claim case was filed by the widow and children of the deceased workman Nilamani Mallick who died in an accident which took place in course of and arising out of his employment. Originally, four issues were framed by the Commissioner, namely : 1. Was the deceased a workman within the meaning of the W.C. Act ? 2. Did the accident arise out of and in course of the employ¬ment of the deceased ? 3. What was the age and monthly wage of the deceased at the time of his accident and death ? 4. Are the applicants entitled to any compensation ? If so to what amount and by whom payable ? After considering the evidence and materials on record, the Commissioner answered issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the claim¬ants by holding that the deceased was a workman within the mean¬ing of the W.C. Act, who died in an accident in course of and arising out of his employment. If so to what amount and by whom payable ? After considering the evidence and materials on record, the Commissioner answered issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the claim¬ants by holding that the deceased was a workman within the mean¬ing of the W.C. Act, who died in an accident in course of and arising out of his employment. As to issue No. 3, it was held that the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of his death and his monthly salary was Rs. 1,800/- per month. On issue No. 4, the Commissioner held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,60,641/- payable by the Insurance Company. 3. In the writ petition, this Court relied upon the deci¬sion of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 2000 SC 1165 , and held that no Court or Tribunal can be regarded powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresen¬tation affecting the basis of the claim. Therefore, this Court quashed the award and remanded the matter. After such remand, the matter was required to be disposed of afresh, but the Commission¬er formed only one issue, which is as follows: 1. Was the deceased travelling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger after undergoing a hydrocel operation just one day prior to the date of accident and has the petitioners obtained the award by commission of fraud on the Court ? The other issues framed earlier were neither reframed nor consid¬ered or was any conclusion reached with regard to those issues. In this appeal, the Insurance Company has specifically taken the ground that the Commissioner ought not to have relied upon his previous finding which was admittedly quashed by this Court and so the judgment, which was based upon the previous finding, is perverse and liable to be set aside. 4. Since the entire order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal, the Commissioner could not have formulated only one issue and relied upon his previous findings on other issues while deciding the case afresh, as without any finding on the issues framed in the original order, the conclu¬sion arrived at in the impugned award cannot be sustained. There¬fore, without going into the merits of the appeal, I feel it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh disposal. The Commissioner should frame all issues involved in the matter and decide them on considering the evidence and materials available on record. The matter should be decided within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the L.C.R., which should be sent back immedi¬ately. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed to the extent indicated.