Tripura HC Case Raises Questions Over Non-Deposit of Employees’ EPF and ESI Contributions
Serious allegations have emerged regarding the alleged non-deposit of Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) contributions deducted from the salaries of workers engaged under the National Health Mission’s (NHM) Emergency Patient Transport Service project in Tripura. According to a report published on October 10, an affidavit filed in a writ petition before the High Court has brought the issue to light, raising questions about the responsibilities of the authorities and the private agencies involved in the project.
The project reportedly engaged around 250 workers through a private agency. Although amounts were deducted from employees’ salaries every month towards EPF and ESI contributions, the corresponding payments were allegedly not deposited with the concerned authorities for years. The workers have raised concerns that their statutory employment benefits were affected despite regular deductions from their wages.
According to the report, the NHM had entrusted the recruitment and project-related work to an agency from Madhya Pradesh, identified as KAPS, which subsequently assigned certain responsibilities to PBC Associates. Allegations have been raised that the agencies failed to fulfil their obligations under the contractual arrangements, resulting in substantial outstanding statutory contributions.
The affidavit reportedly states that approximately ₹1 crore was recovered towards EPF dues from KAPS and PBC Associates following intervention by the High Court. A further amount of around ₹10 lakh was reportedly being pursued towards ESI dues. The disclosures have raised questions about the monitoring of statutory contributions and whether the agencies complied with their legal obligations towards the workers.
The petitioners have also questioned why the NHM allegedly failed to take appropriate action against KAPS despite the reported violations of contractual conditions. They have alleged that workers were left vulnerable because the concerned authorities and agencies did not ensure that the deducted contributions reached the relevant statutory organisations.
The matter highlights the legal responsibility of employers and contractors to deposit statutory EPF and ESI contributions in accordance with applicable law. Deductions from employees’ wages cannot substitute for actual deposit with the appropriate authorities, and failures may attract statutory consequences depending on the facts and applicable provisions.
The High Court has raised questions concerning the action taken against the agency and the reasons for the alleged failure to enforce the contractual obligations. According to the report, the next hearing in the writ petition is expected in the third week of November. The proceedings may clarify the responsibilities of the NHM and the private agencies and determine what further action is required to protect the affected workers’ statutory benefits.
