Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by the employer against the award of the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Meerut dated 8.11.2002 in W.C.A. No. 96 of 1999 arising out of the death of one Ramesh Chandra Sharma that had occurred on 22.2.1999.

2. It appears to have been entertained on the following questions of law :

“1. Whether the commissioner workmen compensation, Meerut have committee an error in holding that the incident occurred during the course and arising out of employment and that the appellant was liable to pay compensation?

2. Whether the commissioner workmen compensation, Meerut was correct in arriving to finding and holding that workman was called for work on his weekly off day and therefore incident occurred in course of employment?

3. Admittedly, Ramesh Chandra Sharma was an employee of the present appellant and he fell off pan station on 6.1.1999 wherein he suffered fracture to his leg for which he was hospitalized by the appellant.

4. Thereafter, the said Ramesh Chandra Sharma was on medical leave when on 22.2.1999, which is more than one month and 11 days from the date of the accident, he died due of unknown cause.

5. Arising from such death the wife of the deceased Ramesh Chandra Sharma filed the aforesaid claim before the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Meerut. The employer filed its written statement claiming that the deceased had a weekly off on 6.1.1999 but he entered factory premises of his own and tried to commit suicide by jumping of the pan station and in that process suffered fracture injuries for which he was treated at the instant of the present appellant. Thereafter, upon discharge from the medical facility the deceased was on medical leave and was taking rest at home when it appears to have died of unknown medical or natural reason. It was therefore contended that the employer could not be held liable under Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the death of Ramesh Chandra Sharma had not been caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the appellant.

6. The claimant on the other hand, did not lead any specific evidence to establish proximate or direct connection between death of Ramesh Chandra Sharma and the accident as claimed by her.

7. The Commissioner Workmen Compensation on its part completely failed to frame any issue though he was obliged to frame such issues in view of the Rule 28 of the Workmen Compensation Rules, 1929. Nevertheless, the Commissioner Workmen Compensation then proceeded to decide the essential controversy involved in the claim case.

8. First the Commissioner has concluded that the defence set up by the appellant that Ramesh Chandra Sharma was on weekly off was not correct. The Commissioner has reasoned that though Ramesh Chandra Sharma may have been on weekly off as proven by the employer by producing attendance document, the deceased could not have entered the factory premises and reached the work station without having been called or authorized in that regard.

9. Though, the reasoning of the Commissioner is shakey, however, even if it is assumed to be correct and it is believed that the deceased had entered the factory premises on 6.1.1999 upon being called to work, still it is difficult to accept that he suffered employment injuries inasmuch as it was further proved by the employer that the deceased had tried to commit suicide which fact was reported to the police authorities on 6.1.1999 itself and to be Assistant Director of factory on 7.1.1999.

10. Leaving that issue apart, there is completely no evidence led by the claimant to establish that the death of the deceased that occurred on 22.2.1999 had any proximate or direct connection with any accident that the deceased may have suffered arising out of and in the course of his employment.

11. Clearly, the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident, if at all it was, were fracture injuries to his