JUDGMENT : G.S. CHAUBE, J.:- Indeed it is an irony and a sad commentary on the affairs of public sector undertakings of this State that the workers of the undertaking, or for that mater their Unions, were driven to the necessity of seeking annihilation of the very Institutions which were sustaining or are supposed to sustain them by providing livelihood. The petitioner in Company Petition no.1/95R is the Union of the workers of High Tension Insulator Factory at Namkom in the district of Ranchi, a unit of the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. known as Ceramic Malleable Mazdoor Sangh of High Tension Insulator Factory and the petitioner in Company Petition No.2/95R is the Union of the workers of another unit of the same Corporation, namely, Swarnrekha Watch Factory at Namkom and is known as Swarnrekha Watch Factory Employees Union or Swarnrekha Ghari Kharkhana Shramik Sangh and they shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner-union(s). Both the applications purporting to be under Section 433(a), 434(a) and 439(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 have been presented by respective Unions of the workers of the High Tension Insulator Factory and Swarnrakha Watch Factory seeking winding up of the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and the units concerned on the ground that they have been unable to pay their rightful dues such as salary, allowance and bonus etc. Since grounds canvassed for winding up in both the cases are identical in nature, these two petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., a public sector undertaking of the Govt. of Bihar registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Indira Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna, is common in both the petitions and has been described as opp. party no.1. Its Managing Director has been described in both the petitions as Opp. Party no. 2. The High Tension Insulator factory at Namkom (Ranchi) is opp. party nO.3 in Company petition no.1/95R and its General Manager is opp. party no.4. Malleable Cast Iron Foundry, a constituent of Opp. Party no.3 is impleaded in the said petition as Opp. Party no.5; whereas Bihar State Electricity Board and its Chairman have been impleaded as Opp. Party nos.6 and 7 respectively therein. In Company petition no.2/95R, Opp. party nO.3 in Company petition no.1/95R and its General Manager is opp. party no.4. Malleable Cast Iron Foundry, a constituent of Opp. Party no.3 is impleaded in the said petition as Opp. Party no.5; whereas Bihar State Electricity Board and its Chairman have been impleaded as Opp. Party nos.6 and 7 respectively therein. In Company petition no.2/95R, Opp. Party no.3 is Swarnrekha Watch Factory and its General Manager has been arrayed as opp. party no.4. 3. Ignoring all the verbose with which the two petitions are replete, the short facts of the case of the petitioner in Company Petition no.1/95R are that the High Tension insulator factory (opp. party no.3) was set up by the Govt. of Bihar some time back in technical collaboration with the Govt. of Czechoslovakia for manufacturing high tension insulators and the factory was acquired and taken over by the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (BSIDC) with all its assets, rights, privileges and liabilities in connection thereof. In course of conciliation proceedings between the management of opp. party no.3 and the union of the workers thereof, a settlement was arrived at on 6.6.66, according to which the Management agreed to implement the orders of the State Govt. issued from time to time in the matter of providing amenities to its employees in accordance with the recommendations of pay Revision Committees appointed on this behalf by the Govt. In other others, the Management of opp. party no.3 agreed to pay to its employees salary, allowances, and bonus etc. from time to time in terms of recommendations of the Pay Revision Committees as payable by the State Government to its employees. It appears that .in course of time, the State Govt. appointed a Pay Revision Committee known as Fifth Pay Revision Committee and that Committee made certain recommendations respecting pay and allowances etc. of the employees of the State Govt. and the same were implemented by the latter. Therefore, in terms of settlement dt.6.6.66, the employees/workers of opp. party no.3 also became entitled to the same amenities including payment of bonus and salary etc. as approved by the State Govt. for its employees in terms of the recommendation of the said Committee. As the employees and workers of opp. party no.1 and opp. party no.3 were not being paid their salary, etc. party no.3 also became entitled to the same amenities including payment of bonus and salary etc. as approved by the State Govt. for its employees in terms of the recommendation of the said Committee. As the employees and workers of opp. party no.1 and opp. party no.3 were not being paid their salary, etc. in terms of recommendation of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee, representations were made by the workers Unions and the Confederation of Unions of Opp. Party no.1 to opp. party no.2. On such representations having been made by the workers Union including the petitioner-Union, at a meeting of those Unions with opp. Party no.2 it was resolved that in terms of recommendations of the Fifty Pay Revision Committee, payment of bonus etc. to the workers shall be made only on getting financial assistance from the State Govt. When payment was not made to them in terms of the assurance given by opp. party no.2, the petitioner-Union submitted a memo of representation dt. 31.3.92 to the General Manager of opp. party no.3 demanding payment of salary of the workers for the months of January, 1992 and February 1992 together with arrears fallen due to them in terms of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee. It appears that the workers of opp. party no.3 were paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- each by way of advance and the Management was intending to adjust the said amount of advance against their salaries for the months of January, February and March, 1992. Therefore, the petitioner-Union had requested that since the workers were not paid their entire arrears for the year 1991-92. the amount of advance should be adjust against that arrears and current salaries for the months of January, February and March, 1992 should be paid to the workers in cash. 4. According to the petitioner-union the workers of opp. party no.5 had hardly received 10% of their arrears of salary etc. and the remaining 90% was still unpaid. The workers were also not paid their salaries after April, 1992. Therefore, a writ application being CWJC 1164/93R was filed in this court by the petitioner-Union. That writ application was disposed of by judgment dt. 14.2.94 whereby and whereunder the employees were directed to refer their claim before the concerned authorities who on their part were directed to approach the State Govt. for releasing necessary fund immediately. The State Govt. Therefore, a writ application being CWJC 1164/93R was filed in this court by the petitioner-Union. That writ application was disposed of by judgment dt. 14.2.94 whereby and whereunder the employees were directed to refer their claim before the concerned authorities who on their part were directed to approach the State Govt. for releasing necessary fund immediately. The State Govt. was also given a direction by this Court to make available to opp. party no.1 necessary fund for making payment of salary and other allowances including arrears of the employees/workers within three months. Some other directions were also given to opp. party no.1 how and in what manner the fund received from the State Govt. shall be utilised and disbursed. When nothing fruitful occurred even on such direction of this Court, a contempt proceeding being MJC no. 178/94R was initiated only to receive a reply from the concerned Deptt. of the State Govt. that as the employees/workers of opp. party no.3 were not the employees of the State Govt., the latter was under no obligation to pay their salary and allowance etc. Consequently the contempt proceeding referred to above was withdrawn. It is the further case of the petitioner-Union that at a meeting of High Powered Committee held on 18.10.93, it was resolved that the State Govt. do release a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs for the purpose of payment of salary to the employees of opp. party no.3, besides releasing some other amounts for maintenance and repair of the factory and working capital, so that the unit (opp. party no.3) was made viable. When the workers of opp. party no.3 were still not paid their salaries etc. even thereafter the petitioner-Union again approached this court by filing yet another writ application being CWJC 3202/94R which stood dismissed on 30.1.95 with observation that the factory being one of the units of BSIDC, the latter should take all steps to make the unit viable so that the employees may be paid their salaries. In the meantime, representations were made by the petitioner-Union to the Chairman of Public Sector Undertakings, the Chief Justice of this Court and others with no fruilful result. According to the petitioner-union employees/workers of opp. In the meantime, representations were made by the petitioner-Union to the Chairman of Public Sector Undertakings, the Chief Justice of this Court and others with no fruilful result. According to the petitioner-union employees/workers of opp. party no.3 were not paid their salary from October, 1992, deferred C.L.A. between March 1986 and March, 1990, bonus for the year 1991-92, over-time wages from May, 1991 till the presentation of the application, except for the month of April, 1992 and 90% of the arrears of their salaries in terms of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee accepted and implemented by the State Govt. Since conflicting stands were being taken by the State Govt. and opp. party no.2 in the matter of payment of salaries to the workers, the petitioner-Union was left with no option but to seek liquidation of opp. party no. 1 and 3 by initiating winding up proceeding according to the provision of the Companies Act instead of again approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction to seek directions for payment to the workers with little hope of compliance of the direction even if given. 5. The facts in Company Petition no. 2/95R are almost the same. Therefore, they need not be reproduced. Suffice to say that like the workers of High Tension Insulator Factory, the workers of the Swarnrekha Watch Factory (opp. party no.3 therein) also a unit of BSIDC were to get the same amenities in terms of the recommendations of different Pay Revision Committees accepted and implemented by the State Govt. respecting its employes and were not paid their arrears of salary and bonus etc., inspite of representations made, writ applications filed and directions given by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. According to the petitioner-Union, in all 54 employees were working in the unit of which 45 were regular and 8 casual workers and they had not received their salary right from April, 1992 and arrears of salary, wages, bonus, overtime allowance etc. in terms of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee. In para 43 of the Company petition, the petitioner Union had given the details of the outstanding dues of the workers of opp. party no.3, the total of which is approximated at Rs. 26,41,825/-. The petitioner-Union has stated that finding no way out, the workers have been driven to the necessity of seeking winding up of opp. In para 43 of the Company petition, the petitioner Union had given the details of the outstanding dues of the workers of opp. party no.3, the total of which is approximated at Rs. 26,41,825/-. The petitioner-Union has stated that finding no way out, the workers have been driven to the necessity of seeking winding up of opp. party no.1 as well as the Watch factory (opp. party no.3) by presenting the application under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act. 6. Opposite parties 1 and 2 in the both the cases appeared and filed separate counter affidavits by way of reply to the applications for winding up. Common and identical pleas have been taken by them for non-suiting the petitioner Unions. According to them both the company petitions are not maintainable on the ground that arrears of salary etc. is not a 'debt' within the meaning of section 433 read with section 434 of the Companies Act and consequently the workers cannot be treated as creditors so as to be entitled to seek winding up of opp. party nos.1 and 3. In any event, the Unions representing those workers have no locus standi to present these applications for winding up. They have also stated that the petitioner-Unions have not made out any case for winding up of opp. party nos.1 and 3 on the ground that it is just and equitable in the opinion of the court that the companies be wound up. It is further contended on their behalf that no notice of the demand of the so-called debt was served on them as required under section 434(1) (a) of the Companies Act. In this view of the matter, it has been submitted that both the petitions are fit to be dismissed. 7. In their counter affidavits, the opposite parties referred to above have not denied their liabilities to pay to the workers of opp. party no.3 in both the cases. However, it has been stated that the units are facing financial constraints and are unable to make full payment of the salaries to the employees. To some measure, they have tried to blame the employees/workers for the poor financial conditions of both the units. 8. party no.3 in both the cases. However, it has been stated that the units are facing financial constraints and are unable to make full payment of the salaries to the employees. To some measure, they have tried to blame the employees/workers for the poor financial conditions of both the units. 8. Therefore, the point for consideration in both the company petitions is whether the petitioner-Unions have locus to present the applications for winding up and if so whether in the facts and circumstances stated above, opp. party nos. 1 and 3 in both the cases are liable to be wound up in consequence of non-payment of, or inability to pay the dues of their employees/workers? 9. These two company petitions for winding up of opp. party no.1 have been presented by the Unions of the workers of two units thereof, namely, opp. party no.3 therein for non-payment of the salary, allowances, bonus current as well as arrears of the workers of those units. Section 439 of the Companies Act provides as to who can file application for winding up of a company. According to sub-section (1) thereof, an application to the court for the winding up a company shall be by petition presented, subject to the provisions of this section (a) by the company; or (b) by creditor or creditors, including any contingent or prospective creditor or creditors; or (c) by any contributory or contributories; or (d) by all or any of the parties referred to above whether together or separately; or (e) by the Registrar of the Companies or (f) in a case falling under section 243, by any person authorised by the Central Govt. in that behalf. This section 439 mentions the persons who are entitled to present petition for winding up of company. Certainly, the employees of the company or workers of any unit thereof are not entitled to present an application for winding up of the company which has employed them. 10. in that behalf. This section 439 mentions the persons who are entitled to present petition for winding up of company. Certainly, the employees of the company or workers of any unit thereof are not entitled to present an application for winding up of the company which has employed them. 10. Law in this regard has been authoritatively laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Textile Workers Union, etc., vs. P.R. Ramkrishnan and others : AIR 1983 SC 75 thus:- ''It is no doubt true that this section (section 439 of the Companies Act) confers the right to present a winding up petition only on certain specifically enumerated persons and the workers are not included in that enumeration and, therefore, obviously the workers have no right to prefer a petition for winding up of a company, but right to apply for winding up of a company being a creature of staute, none other than those on whom the right to present a winding up petition is conferred by the statute can make an application for winding up of a company and no such right having been conferred on the workers, they cannot prefer a winding up petition against a company." 11. Section 433 of the Companies Act states the circumstances in which a company may be wound up by the court. According to this section, a company may be wound up by the court: (a) if the company has, by special resolution, resolved that the company may be wound up by the court; (b) if default is made in delivering the statutory report to the Registrar or in holding the statutory meeting; (c) if the company does not commence its business within a year from its incorporation, or suspends its business for a whole year; (d) if the number of members is reduced, in the case of a public company, below seven, and in the case of a private company, below two; (e) if the company is unable to pay its debts; and (f) if the court is of opinion that it is just and and equitable that the company should be wound up. 12. Both the company petitions purport to have been presented under sections 433(a), 434(a) and 439(b) of the Companies Act. In other words, these two petitions have been preferred as if workers of the two units of the BSIDC (Opp. 12. Both the company petitions purport to have been presented under sections 433(a), 434(a) and 439(b) of the Companies Act. In other words, these two petitions have been preferred as if workers of the two units of the BSIDC (Opp. party no.1) are creditors and the latter is unable to pay its debts in view of the fact that the said company or for that matter its respective units have failed, or are unable, to pay the salary etc. of those workers. Mr. Tapen Sen appearing for the petitioner-Unions submitted that, in fact, these two petitions have been presented in accordance with the provision of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 439 of the Companies Act which empower the creditor or creditors of a company to seek winding up thereof. Manifestly, since the petitions purport to have been presented under clause (e) of Section 433 of the Companies Act, it amounts to this that these two petitins have been presented by the workers of the company or their Unions in the capacity of creditors on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. However, Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the opp. parties has contended that the company petitions, as presented in this court, are not maintainable for the reasons :(1) that arrears of salary or wages of the workers of the company does not amount to 'debts' for inability to pay which alone the company can be wound up by the order of the court; (2) that even if the arrears of salary of the workers of the company are taken to be debt, the provisions of section 433 of the Companies Act are required to be strictly complied with as a condition precedent to the presentation of the application and ordering of the court for winding up and (3) that in any event the workers whose salaries were not paid could present these applications and not the Unions of these workers as in the present case. 13. Section 434 of the Companies Act provides when a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts. 13. Section 434 of the Companies Act provides when a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts. Sub-section (1) thereof lays down that a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts (a) if a creditor by assignment or otherwise, to whom the company is indebted in a sum exceeding five hundred rupees then due, has served on the company, by causing it to be delivered at its registered office, by registered post or otherwise, a demand under his hand requiring the company to pay the sum so due and the company has for for three works thereafter neglected to pay the sum, or to secure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor; (b) if any execution or other process issued on a decree or order of any court in favour of a creditor of the company is returned usatisfied in whole or in part; or (c) if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the company is unable to pay its debts; and, in determining whether a company is unable to pay its debts, the court shall taking account the contingent and prospective liabilities of the company. 14. The term 'debt' has' not been defined anywhere in the Companies Act. Ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'debt' is what one owes to another; or what one becomes liable to do or suffer; a state of obligation or indebtedness, according to Chambers English Dictionary. The Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary defines the word 'debt' as a sum of money owed to somebody that has not yet been paid. According to the definition of the word given in the Law Lexicon compiled by P. Ramanath Aiyer, 'debt' is a sum of money due under an express or implied agreement; or amount due or payable from one person to another in return for money, services, goods, or other obligations. Thus in common parlance, debt is a sum of money due from one person to another. However, this word has been used in different statutes to connote different meaning according as the context in which it has been used or is referred to in those statutes. In AIR 1963 Madras 356 (Commissioner of Wealth Tax Madras. Vs. Pierce Leslie and Co. However, this word has been used in different statutes to connote different meaning according as the context in which it has been used or is referred to in those statutes. In AIR 1963 Madras 356 (Commissioner of Wealth Tax Madras. Vs. Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd.) in the context the word has been used in Wealth Tax and Income Tax Act a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that "debt is a liquidated money obligation for recovery of which an action will lie. It is an ascertained liquidated quantified obligation enforceable in present or in future. According to that decision, a debt must be a 'debitum' that is due. 15. Section 434 of the Companies Act postulates three contingences when a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts to its creditor or creditors. The first contingency according to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 is when a creditor serves the company with a notice under registered post or otherwise showing that the latter owes to him a sum exceeding rupees five hundred and makes a demand under his hand requiring the company to pay that sum and the company on such service of the notice of demand neglects to pay the money for three weeks thereafter. The second situation envisaged in clause (b) is if the execution or other process issued on a decres or order of any court in favour of a creditor of the company is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part. Obviously, this provision is not applicable to the present proceedings. According to clause (c), a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts if on taking into account the contingent and prospective liabilities of the company, the court is satisfied that the company is unable to pay its debt. These two applications have admittedly been presented invoking the provision of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act. Therefore, in my opinion, when an application for winding up is presented taking recourse to the provision of clause (a) of section 433 read with the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act, the debt necessarily means a quantified sum exceeding rupees five hundred. Therefore, in my opinion, when an application for winding up is presented taking recourse to the provision of clause (a) of section 433 read with the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act, the debt necessarily means a quantified sum exceeding rupees five hundred. Therefore, when an application for winding up of a company is presented under section 433 (a) read with section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act by creditor, it necessarily means that the debt required to be paid by the company must be a definite sum exceeding rupees five hundred. Unless the money is liquidated and quantified, it cannot be taken to be a debt within the meaning of section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. When recourse to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 434 is taken, different connotation to word debt is possible. The applications having been presented taking recourse to the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act, strict compliance thereof is needed for passing an order of winding up. 16. In paragraph 53 of Company petition no.1/95R, what has been stated by the petitioner-Union therein is that the workers of the Malleable Cast Iron Foundry of High Tension Insulator Factory (opp. party no.5), a unit of BSIDC has not been paid their salary from October, 1992, deferred C.L.A. from March, 1986 to March, 1990, bonus for the year 1991-92, overtime wages from May, 1991 till the filing of the application except for the month of April, 1992, and 90% of the arrears of salary payable in accordance with the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee. This description of the dues of the workers of the unit in question hardly satisfies the ingredients of debt within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act. Likewise in paragraph 43 of Company Petition no.2/95R, the dues of the workers of Swarnrekha Watch Factory (opp. party no.3 therein) have been described as a sum of Rs. 12,64,705/- on account of wages etc. from April, 1993 to April, 1994; Rs. 81120/- on account of the wages of 8 casual employees for the same period; Rs. 5,46,000/- towards arrears of salary withheld contrary to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, Rs. party no.3 therein) have been described as a sum of Rs. 12,64,705/- on account of wages etc. from April, 1993 to April, 1994; Rs. 81120/- on account of the wages of 8 casual employees for the same period; Rs. 5,46,000/- towards arrears of salary withheld contrary to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of bonus for the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 approximately Rs.1 lakh per year; Rs.3 lakhs approximately towards arrears of enhanced Dearness Allowance with effect from December, 1991 to January, 1994 and Rs. 50,000/- approximately on account of overtime wages in respect of the IIIrd and IVth grade employees with effect from April, 1993 to April, 1994. According to the petitioner-Union in Company petition no.2/95R, the dues of the workers represented by it amounted to approximately Rs. 26,41,825/-. In my opinion, even this type of dues are not countenanced by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act. It is manifest that dues of the workers represented by these petitioner-Unions for inability to pay which the petitions for winding up have been filed are not quantified and merely guess work. The wages or salary of a worker becomes 'debt' only when it is quantified at the end of the month taking into consideration the days for which he has worked. There is nothing on the record to show that bills for wages of the workers were prepared and passed, but still the payments on account thereof were not made. 17. Apart from the fact that according to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act, the debt should be a liquidated and quantified sum exceeding Rs.500/-. it is also necessary that a written demand notice in the hand of the creditor himself or any agent duly authorised by him should be delivered at the registered office of the company requiring the company to pay the debt and only if the company neglects to pay the dues or to secure or compound the same to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor within a period of three weeks after the delivery of the demand notice, that presentation of an application for winding up is permissible. In the instant case, admittedly no such notice demanding payment of the dues of the workers of any of the units of BSIDC appears to have been delivered on its registered offices at Patna. It may be mentioned here that under the Companies Act, it is the company which can be wound up and not any unit thereof, when that unit is not a separate company, a subsidiary to the principal company. Admittedly, the High Tension Insulator factory and Swarnrekha Watch factory are not companies registered under the Companies Act, but they are merely two units or factories of BSIDC. In the present case, even no such demand notice appears to have been delivered on the office of the General Manager (opp. party no.4) or Manager (opp. party no.4) respectively of those units. 18. Mr. Tapen Sen has, however, contended that law does not require any special form of notice of demand to be delivered in compliance with the provision of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act. According to him, the demand need not be in any special form nor is it necessary to use the word 'demand' in the notice. A peremptory request or call for payment would be sufficient. He has submitted that various annexures in the applications indicate that the Unions representing the workers had been making representations and filing writ applications demanding payment of their salaries etc. Therefore, according to him, the requirement of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act shall be taken to be substantially complied with. I find myself quite unable to agree with him. According to the provision of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act, the demand in whatsoever form, has to be made in the hand of the creditor or creditors. According to sub-section (2) of section 434, the demand referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been duly given under the hand of the creditor, if it is signed by any Agent or legal adviser duly authorised on his behalf (emphasis added), or in the case of a firm, if it is signed by any such agent or legal adviser or by any member of the firm. In other words, the demand notice has to be signed either by the creditor himself or his agent or legal adviser duly authorised by him in this behalf. There is not even a chit of paper to show that the workers whom the petitioner-Unions claim to represent had either by executing any power of attorney or even by adopting a resolution in the meeting of the General Body authorised any office bearers of the Unions representing them to deliver the demand notice on the company (opp. party no 1.) on their behalf in terms of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act. Therefore, even if the petitioner-Unions happened to make some representations for payment of salaries of the workers represented by them, by no standard such a representation can be treated as demand in the hands of the workers/creditors to satisfy the requirement of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act. 19. It may be that a creditor seeking winding up of a company on the ground of the latter's inability to pay its debts fails to prove his case strictly in accordance with the provision of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act, but still the Company may be ordered by the court to be wound up if the petitioner-creditor otherwise succeeds in proving to the satisfaction of the court that the company is unable to pay its debts. In doing so, the court is required to take into account the contingent and prospective liabilities of the company before determining whether the company is unable to pay its debts or not. In the present case it has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner-Unions that the employees of opp. party no.5 in Company Petition No.1/95R (Malleables Cast Iron Foundry) and Swarnrekha Watch Factory (opp. party no.3 in Company petition no.2/95 (R)) have not been paid their salaries etc. since Feb., 1993. Opposite parties have admitted in their show cause that the workers of those two units could not be paid their salaries etc. due to paucity of fund. As indicated earlier, they have also blamed the workers also for such a state of affairs. party no.3 in Company petition no.2/95 (R)) have not been paid their salaries etc. since Feb., 1993. Opposite parties have admitted in their show cause that the workers of those two units could not be paid their salaries etc. due to paucity of fund. As indicated earlier, they have also blamed the workers also for such a state of affairs. By filing a supplementary affidavit on 28.4.98, they stated that 79 employees of Ceramic Malleables Cast Iron Foundry and 60 of Swarnrekha Watch Factory have been paid their salaries up to 1993. In the subsequent paragraphs, they stated that those employees were paid up to May, 1993 only, although in the reply, the petitioners-Unions submitted that they have not been paid beyond January, 1993. By filing yet another supplementary counter affidavit on 8.9.98, opp. party no.1 informed this court that Swarnrekha Watch Factory (opp. party no.3 in Company petition no.2/95R)) and Ceramics Malleables Cast Iron Foundry (Opp. party no.5 in Company Petition no.1/95(R)) were lying closed since 1992. At the time of hearing, Mr. Kameswar Prasad submitted that since there is no chance of Swarnrekha Watch Factory being revived, attempt is being made to absorb its employees in some other viable units of BSIDC. On 23.2.9 another affidavit was filed on behalf of the Central Manager of High Tension Insulator Factory and Swarnrekha Watch Factory who is probably looking after both the factories in absence of any manager of Swarnrekha Watch Factory because it is lying closed since 1902, informing this court that pursuant to order passed by this Court from time to time, the High Tension Insulator Factory has started working and sufficient resources have been tapped for making payment and, as a matter of fact, the workers and staff of the said factory have been paid their salaries and wages from February, 1997 to December, 1998. It was also stated in the affidavit that surplus staff of High Tension Insulator Factory are placed on deputation in some other Deptts. of the Govt. of Bihar and some of them are likely to go on deputation in near future. It was also stated that attempts have been made to make the factory viable and kicking. It was also stated in the affidavit that surplus staff of High Tension Insulator Factory are placed on deputation in some other Deptts. of the Govt. of Bihar and some of them are likely to go on deputation in near future. It was also stated that attempts have been made to make the factory viable and kicking. In the affidavit filed on behalf of Ceramics Malleable Cast Iron Foundry on 15.3.99, it was again reiterated that the said Foundry is lying closed since 1992 and a proposal is under consideration to absorb the employees of the said Foundry in various units of the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. The deponent who identified himself to be an officer of the Foundry presently on deputation to High Tension Insulator Factory stated that employees of Ceramics Malleables Cast Iron Foundry have also been paid a sum of Rs.19,19,644.15 ps. on account of their salary from Feb. 1993 to 1998. In support of the statement, a certificate purporting to have been issued by a Chartered Accountant on 22.6.98 was also annexed. However, in their reply dt. 22.3.99, the petitioner-Union in Company Petition no.1/95R refuted the contention and submitted that, as a matter of fact, the employees of Ceramics Malleable Cast Iron Foundry have not received a single farthing after January, 1993. 20. Be that as it may, the fact remains that even according to the own statement of opp. party nos.1 and 2 workers of Swarnrekha Watch Factory have not been paid their salary after May, 1993 on the ground that the unit is lying closed since 1992. However, an assurance has been given that the workers of the said unit shall be absorbed in near future in some other units of BSIDC or other Deptts. of the Govt. While assurance has been given for absorption of the workers of Ceramic Malleables Cast Iron Foundry of High Tension Insulator Factory by deputation or otherwise, there is a dispute regarding payment. Affidavit has been sworn on behalf of opp. partes that even the workers of Ceramic Malleable Cast Iron Foundry have been paid their salaries up to 1998 without stating the month of payment, the petitioner-Union in Company Petition no.1/95R has filed affidavit denying this assertion and stated that the workers represented by them have not been paid from Feb. 1992. Affidavit has been sworn on behalf of opp. partes that even the workers of Ceramic Malleable Cast Iron Foundry have been paid their salaries up to 1998 without stating the month of payment, the petitioner-Union in Company Petition no.1/95R has filed affidavit denying this assertion and stated that the workers represented by them have not been paid from Feb. 1992. Drawing my attention to a decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in 1997(1) BLJ 1010 , Mr. Tapen Sen has submitted that since in their counter affidavit, the opp. parties have admitted that they were not able to pay the dues to the workers due to paucity of fund, they are liable to be wound up. 21. In the case of Manikant Pathak and others Vs State of Bihar and others, writ applications had been filed by the employees of Bihar Finished Leathers Ltd., a subsidiary company of the Bihar Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. for a direction to the State Govt. to provide sufficient fund to the said Corporations to facilitate payment of salaries of the employees of those corporations. The respondents, namely, the Corporations aforesaid admitted their liabilities but took a plea of non-availability of sufficient fund generated either from their own resources or made available to them by the State Govt. as a ground for non-payment of salary etc. of the employees. The Full Bench of this Court held that the employees of those Corporations not being employees of the State Govt., no direction can be given to the State Govt. for releasing fund to the Corporations for payment of wages to their employees. However, in para 19 of the judgment, the Bench observed as below:- "19. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners cannot maintain their claim against the State of Bihar. They are entitled to reliefs only against the respective Corporations, namely, Bihar Finished Leathers, and the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation. The Corporations have, however, come with a plea that they have no fund and resources from which salary can be paid to the employees. In such a situation; in my opinion, apart from issuing a direction to them to pay the salary to the employees, the proper direction to be issued would also be for the winding up of the Corporations. In such a situation; in my opinion, apart from issuing a direction to them to pay the salary to the employees, the proper direction to be issued would also be for the winding up of the Corporations. Section 433 of the Companies Act provides for the situation where a company may be wound up by the Court. A company may be wound up under Section 433, inter alia, where it is unable to pay its debt under clause (a) or where the Court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up. In my opinion, the case comes under both the clauses. I would, therefore, direct the State Government to file winding up petition in this Court if the two Corporations are not able to pay salary to their employees within a period of four months and revive themselves as viable enterprises, so that the assets of the companies may be sold and the salary etc. are paid to the employees in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act." 22. No doubt ratio of this decision is that for the purposes of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 434 read with section 433(e) of the Companies Act, the salary etc. of the workers of the company shall be deemed to be a debt due to inability to pay which the company may be ordered by the court to be wound up. However, in my opinion, even relying on the said observation of the Full Bench, Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation cannot be ordered to be wound up on tile strength of these company petitions for the following reasons. It has been stated that two units of the said company namely Ceramic Malleable Cast iron Foundry (opp. party no.2 in Company Petition no. 1/95(R)) and Swarnrekha Watch factory (Opp. party no.5 in Company Petition no.2/95R)) are lying closed since 1992 and there is no chance of reviving them. Attempt is being made to absorb their employees in some other units of the Corporation or some other Govt. companies or departments of the Govt. As regards the employees of High Tension Insulator Factory (opp. party no.3 of Company petition no.1/95(R)) payments are being made to them and attempt is also being made to revive that unit. Attempt is being made to absorb their employees in some other units of the Corporation or some other Govt. companies or departments of the Govt. As regards the employees of High Tension Insulator Factory (opp. party no.3 of Company petition no.1/95(R)) payments are being made to them and attempt is also being made to revive that unit. Affidavit has also been filed stating that even the employees of the Ceramic Malleable Cast Iron Foundry have been paid their salaries etc. up to 1998, although this fact has been denied by the petitioner-Union in Company Petition no.1/95R. Under Companies Act only it is the company which can be wound up and not any unit or the factory thereof whose workers have not been paid their salary etc. The object for which Bihar State industrial Development Corporation was established include promotion, establishment and execution of industries etc. in the State; promotion and operation of Schemes for industrial development of the State of Bihar; to aid, assist and finance any industrial undertaking, project or enterprise whether owned or run by the Govt. as also to promote and establish companies and Association for prosecution or execution of the industrial undertaking, project or enterprise whether owned or run by the Govt. as also to promote and establish companies and Association for prosecution or execution of the industrial undertaking etc. of any description whether it is of private or public character, which in the opinion of the company would contribute to the industrial development of Bihar. 23. If opp. party no.1 are to be ordered to be wound up in consequence of nonpayment of salaries etc. of a few employees of the units of the Corporation, to be precise 139 (79 + 60) it shall be gross injustice to the people of the State specially when those employees are being assured of their absorption in some other viable units of the Corporation or other companies and departments of the Govt. It is expected that the Corporation shall make earnest endeavour to make payment of their wages and arrears in the meantime and ensure that they are absorbed in other units etc. as early as possible.. In my opinion, in the circumstance, liquidation of the Corporation or even of High Tension Insulator Factory which has by now become a going concern, shall not be in the interest of the workers themselves. as early as possible.. In my opinion, in the circumstance, liquidation of the Corporation or even of High Tension Insulator Factory which has by now become a going concern, shall not be in the interest of the workers themselves. In course of the hearing of these two petitions, I gather the true intention of the petitioner-Unions in presenting these two winding up petitions. Their anxiety is more for ensuring payment to the workers represented by them, than to get the Corporation or the concerned units liquidated. Therefore, since it will not be in the interest of the workers themselves to wind up their employer-company, the prayer of the petitioner-Unions has to be declined in the larger interest of the workers and the people of the State. 24. Since for the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to allow any of these company petitions, I do not consider it necessary to express my opinion whether or not the petitioner-Unions could rave preferred these petitions on behalf of the workers represented by them. Suffice it to say that in paragraph 7 of both the petitions, it has been stated that the General Secretary of the respective petitioner-Union had been authorised by all the members of the Unions to present the applications. In their counter affidavit, opp. party nos.1 and 2 disputed the correctness of this assertion. The petitioner-Unions failed to produce any document to show that the members had authorised the General Secretary of their respective Unions either individually by executing power of attorney or collectively by adopting any resolution in the meeting of the General Body. 25. In the result, both the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. In the circumstance of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.