' AMJAD KHAN, J.--This writ petition by Mukhtar Masih, a returned candidate in the election held to the minority seat of Haroonabad Municipal Committee, calls in question the order dated 1-7-1989 passed by respondent No,1 in an election petition maintained by Phool Chand Pandit (respondent No,2); whereby he annulled the petitioner's election upon conclusion reached to the effect that his candidature suffered from disqualification of being a 'salaried official' within the contemplation of section 21(1)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and he directed fresh election to be held for that scat.
2. Plea urged in the election petition, among others, was that Mukhtar Masih is a Government servant employed in the Government Dairy and Poultry Farm, Haroonabad and receives pay from the Exchequer. Upon contest, necessary issue was framed and evidence of only two witnesses, an Auditor and an Accountant of the Farm, was adduced in support of the petition which is to the effect that Mukhtar Masih is serving on daily wages in the Live-Stock Farm, Haroonabad, a Government Project since 1987 with a gap of one or two months and in December, 1988 he received Rs,651. There was no evidence led in rebuttal and even the parties themselves did not make their depositions for or against the said averment.
' There, no doubt, were certain questions put to those witnesses for eliciting the answers to the effect that the returned candidate was neither a permanent employee nor entitled to any allowance or pension and the Auditor (P.W.1) went on to even depose during the cross- examination as under:-- "Drivers are engaged for tractors at the time of sowing of crops. There are 18 other persons alongwith Mukhtar Masih engaged on daily wages for the month of December, 1988. There are other permanent employees of the Livestock Farm. It is correct that sweepers, like Mukhtar Masih are permanent employees of the Department. There is no application of Mukhtar Masih for his engagement as a temporary employee of the Live-Stock Farm or on daily wages."
' It is noteworty that it has not been brought out anywhere as to what may be the nature of the job actually assigned to Mukhtar Masih.
3. Reasoning germane to the impugned judgment is:-- "There is no mention in the above-quoted provision of law that a salaried official must be a whole- time oficial or a part-time salaried official. It clearly connotes that the person who is in receipt of salary from the Government exchequer is a salaried person like the respondent No,1. He was receiving salary in the sense that he was receiving a recompence or payment on account of his continuance in the Provincial service although on work charge basis even. The words 'whole-time salaried official' are in fact adjectives and have been used as attributes to qualify the noun `official'.
(b) and the characteristics of whose office is, that it is a salaried as opposed to the adjective 'honorary'. Similarly, the other attribute of the official position must be that it is a whole-time 'as opposed to part-time appointment'. As already observed, the word `whole-time' has not been incorporated in clause (e) subsection (1) of section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 as the only expression used therein is the 'salaried official'."
4. lection Tribunal has not much erred in comprehending the meaning of `salary', the source of the word 'salaried'. This is an expression used, of course, in some rare situations only, to convey earnings of the nature of wages and is, at times, even used inter-changeably therewith but the expression 'wages' is generally confined to the earnings of labourers and artisans while the word `salary' is used for payment of services of persons only of a higher class-- (Grover, J. In Gordon v.
Jonnings 51 L.J.Q.B.P. 418). Respondent No,1 has, however, grievously erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction to altogether leave out of consideration the word 'official' while construing the expression 'salaried official' which occurs in clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 reproduced hereunder:-- "21. Disqualifications of candidates and members.- - (1) A person shall be disqualified to be a candidate or a member of a local council--- (a)..............
(b)..............
(c)..............
(d)..............
(e) if he is a salaried official of Federal or Provincial Government or of a Public or Statutory Corporation, a local council or other local authority."
'The term 'salary' itself bespeaks of a person higher in status than a labourer or artisan, which Mukhtar Masih has, of course, been proved to be, on the basis of evidence led by the respondent himself. The word 'Official', in its dictionary-meaning, signifies that thing which pertains to office and the word 'Office' has reference to that function by virtue whereof a person has some employment in the affairs of another, whether judicial, ministerial, legislative, municipal, ecclesiastical etc.- (Cowel's Law Terms and Phrases). 'Office' means, 'position with duties attached to it, place of authority or trust or service, especially of public kind'. The essence of office is that it involves duties and position of authority and trust of public nature. In that sense of the word, an artisan or a workman working in a factory does not hold any 'office'.
' Whether or not the writ petitioner may be just a sweeper, as may have been intended by P.W.1 to be conveyed in the expression, 'Sweepers like Mukhtar Masih', he has not been proved by any standard to be an official, to fall within the ambit of the expression 'salaried official'. The petitioner is not proved to be having any authority or trust of public nature to have incurred the above-referred disqualification.
5. The Election Tribunal (respondent No,1) has only arbitrarily and without any basis held the petitioner to be disqualified from holding the minority seat in question. His order does not have any support from the record and is, hence, not sustainable.
6. In result of the foregoing, we accept this writ petition and declare the order dated 1-7-1988 passed by respondent No,1 to be unlawful and of no effect.
' Further, the relevant election petition is also declared unsubstantiated. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.