- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44167 CRP No. 460 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 460 OF 2016 (SC) BETWEEN: M/S UNITEL WORKS WIRELESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED PLAT NO.34, 3RD FLOOR, RATHANLOK COLONY NEAR MPED, (SCHEME NO.53) VIJAYANAGAR, INDORE MADHYA PRADESH - 452 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/ SENIOR MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G.B.NANDISH GOWDA, FOR SRI R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI S S KIRAN KUMAR S/O SRI SHADAKSHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/4, WARD NO.9 KUDLYGATE MAIN ROAD, LAKSHMI LAYOUT, G.B.PALYA BENGALURU - 560 068. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.J.KALADEEPA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2016 PASSED IN SC NO.130/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44167 CRP No. 460 of 2016 BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri R.B. Sadasivappa, counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. J.Kaladeepa, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the decree passed in S.C.No.130/2015, dated 22.08.2016, on the file of XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. Plaintiff being the graduate in Engineering in the field of telecommunication applied for the post of Graduate Technical Engineer with the defendant company with a gross package of remuneration in a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- per annum during the training period and on successful completion of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44167 CRP No. 460 of 2016 training on regular appointment, his pay package was fixed at rate of Rs.4.17/- lakhs per annum. Probation period of six months was contracted at the time of joining. Plaintiff was required to pay sum of Rs.90,000/- as security deposit, which the plaintiff deposited by way of demand draft with defendant company. 3.2. However, on account of improper treatment in the probation period, wherein the defendant directed the plaintiff to work like a unskilled employee in directing to climb the mobile tower, resulted in grave insult to the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff resigned from his job. 3.3. Resignation was accepted by the defendant. But return of security deposit was not complied by the defendant on the ground that plaintiff did not discharge his work to the satisfaction of the defendant. As such, the defendant company had to incur loss on account of resignation by the plaintiff. Plaintiff left with no alternative, filed the suit for recovery of the security deposit with interest. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44167 CRP No. 460 of 2016 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto except admitting that plaintiff was the employee of the defendant. 5. Defendant maintained that plaintiff did not complete the probation period successfully and also contended that there was unauthorised absence of the plaintiff. 6. Learned trial Judge thereafter recorded the evidence of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the material on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with cost. The defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff Rs.90,000/- within two months from the date of order or else he is liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of order till realization.” 8. Being approved by the same, defendant has filed the present revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44167 CRP No. 460 of 2016 9. Sri G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that trial Court failed to note that the security deposit got forfeited on account of not satisfactorily discharging the probation period by the plaintiff and also abruptly resigning from the job besides remaining away from the duty unauthorisedly. 10. He would further contend that as per the terms of the appointment letter, defendant company had every right to forfeit the security deposit. Therefore, decreeing of the suit filed by the plaintiff has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Per contra, Smt. J. Kaladeepa, learned counsel representing the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that the plaintiff was a B.E., graduate in telecommunications. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44167 CRP No. 460 of 2016 14. As per the appointment order, he was required to discharge the job of graduate trainee engineer. The work allotment for the graduate trainee engineer was not that of climbing a mobile tower. 15. D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted the photographs wherein plaintiff was required to climb the mobile tower. 16. A telecom engineer is not supposed to climb the mobile tower like an unskilled labourer and it is crystal clear that plaintiff was humiliated by the defendant. 17. Besides ill-treating, assigning improper work which is totally against the appointment order. Nature of work of the plaintiff was something different than what he was required to discharge on the field. 18. Therefore, the resignation by the plaintiff in the factual circumstance of the case is perfectly justified. 19. Soon after resignation was accepted, plaintiff was in fond hope of getting the refund of his security deposit in a sum of Rs.90,000/- which he had deposited with the defendant by way of demand draft. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44167 CRP No. 460 of 2016 20. However, to the dismay of the plaintiff, the defendant denied to return the security deposit on one pretext or the other. Left with no alternative, plaintiff had to approach the Court for recovery of said sum of Rs.90,000/- with interest. 21. Unfortunately, defendant did not realize their mistake and they contested the suit on false and flimsy grounds. 22. Cross examination of D.W.1 in page 3 would make it clear that nature of work that was assigned to the plaintiff was far away from the appointment letter. 23. Therefore, the trial Court appreciating the probative value of the material evidence placed on record, rightly appreciated the probative value of the oral evidence placed on record by the plaintiff and rightly decreed the suit which requires no interference by this Court that too in the revisional of jurisdiction. 24. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition stands dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44167 CRP No. 460 of 2016 (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR