JUDGMENT 1. - A challenge has been made to the award dated 4.2.2004 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, District Baran (hereinafter 'the learned Commissioner') allowing the petition filed by the respondent claimant (hereinafter 'the claimant') and awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,53,090/- with interest for the death of Mahendra Singh Hada- the husband / father of the claimants during the period of his employment with the appellant non-claimant Anta Kriya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Anta (hereinafter "the non-claimant"). 2. Counsel for the non-claimant submitted that Mahendra Singh Hada- the husband of the claimant indeed expired on 15.6.2000 while he was in the employment of the non-claimant owing to heart failure (a natural cause) allegedly for the stress suffered by his suspension on 14.6.2000. It was further submitted that no postmortem report or any other document in the nature of medical evidence pertaining to the purported heart failure and the consequent death of Mr. Mahendra Singh Hada was brought on record before the learned Commissioner. It was submitted that the case of the non-claimant was that in-fact Mr. Mahendra Singh Hada had died on 15.6.2000 after intake of poisonous substance, in an apparent act of suicide. Mr. Mahendra Singh Hada while employed with the non-claimant was engaged as a Store-keeper and consequently it could not be held that he had died on 15.6.2000 in an accident arising out of or occasioned by his employment with the non-claimant. Counsel's submission was that even under the doctrine of notional extension of employment no ground for laying of claim petition and passing of the award in favour of the claimant against the non-claimant was made out in the facts of the case. Counsel has submitted that even otherwise the learned Commissioner did not even frame an issue, in-spite of specific case set up by the non-claimant, as to whether the death of Mr. Mahendra Singh Hada for reason of heart failure on 15.6.2000 could be related in any manner and even remotely to his employment as a Store Keeper, under suspension, with the non-claimant. Mahendra Singh Hada for reason of heart failure on 15.6.2000 could be related in any manner and even remotely to his employment as a Store Keeper, under suspension, with the non-claimant. Reference has been made to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore & Anr, JT 2006(6) SC 300 to state that where death of an employee was a consequence of any disease suffered by the employee no liability could be fastened on the employer under the Provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1923'). 3. None has appeared for the claimant in-spite of notice. 4. The appeal was admitted on 15.7.2007. The questions of law which have been made out in the present appeal is as under: "Whether the non-applicant could be held liable to pay compensation relating to the death of the deceased in the absence of proof that his death arose from the factum of employment with the non-claimant. 5. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award dated 4.2.2004. 6. Section 3 of the Act of 1923 details the situation where an employer is liable for compensation for the death or injury which an employee suffers during the course of his employment. It requires that the injury / death should be for reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of an employment of an employee. Only thereupon the employer is liable to pay compensation to the employee or his dependants, as the case may be, under the provisions of the Act of 1923. In the instant case it is clear that the deceased Mahendra Singh Hada was suspended on 14.6.2000 and on 15.6.2000 allegedly on the way to his office he died between 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM. No medical evidence as to the cause of death was produced before the learned Commissioner. Aside of the aforesaid, the learned Commissioner in-spite of the specific case of the non-claimant that the death of Mahendra Singh Hada could not be attributed to his employment, did not frame the important issue as to whether the death of Mahendra Singh Hada on 14.6.2000 related to an accident arising from his employment - even by resort to the doctrine of notional extension of employment. 7. 7. To my mind the award dated 4.2.2004 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Baran is vitiated for having failed to address the fundamental issue as to whether the death of Mahendra Singh Hada arose from the employment with the non-claimant Sahakari Samiti. 8. Consequently, I would set aside the award dated 4.2.2004 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Baran and remand the matter to the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Baran to determine the question as to whether the death of Mahendra Singh Hada arose and was consequent to the discharge of his duties with the non-claimant. 9. The misc. appeal stands disposed of accordingly.Appeal Disposed of. *******