I.S Tiwana, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner, whose election as Sarpanch of Oram Panchayat, Kharkali, held on 27th June, 1983, has consistently been set aside by the prescribed and the appellate authorities under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (as applicable to Haryana) (for short, the 'Act') vide orders dated 19th March, 1984 and 31st July, 1985, Annexures P -1 and P -2 respectively, on the ground that the Petitioner was "a whole time salaried servant of the Radaur Cane Growers Co -operative Society Limited, Radaur" and was, thus, not eligible to be elected or to continue as a Sarpanch in view of the provisions of Section 5(5)(g) of the Act, has impugned the said orders According to Petitioner's counsel, this conclusion of the subordinate authorities is wholly unsustainable as it is not supported by any evidence on record. Though as per these two impugned orders the pleaded case of the Respondent (Petitioner before those authorities) was that the present Petitioner was a daily wage worker of the above noted Society and it was not even so disputed before the said authorities yet this is how the Appellate Authority has dealt with the matter in controversy: - Mr. Chandermani, the learned Counsel for the Appellants has canvassed that the Appellant is the only a daily wages worker and therefore cannot be said to be whole time salaried servant of the Society. I, however, do not agree with this contention. The Appellant himself has admitted in his statement made in the court that he is working in the Society for the last 10 12 years and that during this period he has been working from 282 to 340 days per year. The certificate Ex. P -1 also shews this. On the day of filing of the nomination papers, as also on the day of election, the Appellant was on leave Under these circumstances, the Appellant in my opinion, will be considered to be a whole time salaried servant of the Co -operative Society and as such was not qualified to stand for the election as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat.
(2.) IT is thus apparent that what has impressed these authorities and mere particularly the Appellate Authority to record the conclusion that the Petitioner was a whole time salaried servant of the above noted Cooperative Society is his long continued employment with the Society for ten/twelve years and the fact that he was on leave on two particular days, i e, the date of nomination and the date of election. This approach to solve the controversy, to my mind is wholly untenable. Neither the number of years nor the days for which the Petitioner had worked for the Society nor any marked distinction between 'salary' and 'wages' on which the learned Counsel for the parties chose to build up their respective cases, are to my mind, of much assistance to find out as to whether the Petitioner was a whole time salaried servant of the Society or was only a daily wages worker with it The words 'salary' and 'wages' are not defined in the Act and these two terms are not 'terms of art'. As has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd v. Commissioner of Income -tax, West Bengal : (1979) 117 I T.R. 1, conceptually there is no difference between salary and wages, both being a recompense for work done or services rendered, though ordinarily the former expression is used in connection with services of non manual type while the later is used in connection with manual services. It is further common knowledge that this compensation to the labourer or artisan can be a specified sum for a given time of service or a fixed sum for a specified work, i e., payment made by the job, commonest example of the latter category being a piece -rated worker. In other words, the expression "wages" does not imply that the compensation is to be determined solely upon the basis of time spent in service, it may be determined by the work done. Then what to my mind is essential to determine the status of a person as to whether he is a whole time salaried servant of the Government or is a daily wage worker, is his contract of employment. It is only on the basis of the appointment order of an individual that a firm conclusion can be recorded as to whether he is a whole time salaried servant of his employer or is only a wage worker. None of the parties to this litigation and more particularly the election Petitioner on whom the onus to prove the issue noticed above lay, has bothered to bring on record the contract of employment or the order of appointment of the Petitioner as an employee of the Society. In the light of that it cannot possibly be said as to what was the status or nature of appointment of the Petitioner. It is elementary that for dislodging a person from his elected office his disqualification on the ground for his removal from that office has to be conclusively proved or proved beyond doubt. There being no such material on the records of this case, I find it difficult to disqualify or remove the Petitioner from the Sarpanchship to which he had been duly elected. For this very reason I find it difficult to sustain the impugned orders and set these aside. However, I make no order as to costs.;