Judgment :- This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondents dated I 19.9.2001 and to direct the second and third respondents to absorb the petitioner as helper in the North Chennai Thermal Power Station w.e.f. 27.10.1999 with all attendant monetary benefits under the impugned order, the second respondents has rejected the request of the petitioner to absorb him as helper on the basis that the Forensic Department has confirmed that the signature made by the petitioner differs in various aspects. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Group worker in Stone Picking job in the Coal Handling Plant (CHP) of the North Chennai Thermal Power Station (NCTPS) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board between 21.7.1995 to 31.3.1997. From 1.4.1997 to 23.2.1999, the petitioner worked through a contractor, Senthoor Pandi. He was transferred from the Coal Handling Plant to the Control & Instruction (C&I) Division from 24.2.1999. The petitioner was given individual identity card by the North Chennai Thermal Power Station (NCTPS) called contract labour entry pass. This, according to the petitioner was given pursuant to a Board circular dated 28.4.1999. The petitioner was one among the workers identified by the Board and his name also finds in the seniority list but lie was not absorbed despite working in the Coal Handling Plant (CHP) by the Committee set tip by the Board on 28.10.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that working in the said Coal Handling Plant (CHP), he was not absorbed and lie made several representations. Thereafter,, lie moved this Court by filing a writ petition praying for a direction to absorb him as a Helper as per the Circular dated 28.4.1999, giving him due seniority and weightage, apart from paying arrears of salary. This Court, in the order dated 20.3.2001 has directed the respondents Board to consider the representation of the petitioner within 2 months and pursuant to the same the present impugned order came to be passed after undue delay. 3. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioner was not absorbed as Helper due to the reason that lie had been a proxy in the name of one P. Vijayakumar, the contractor Linder whom lie worked. Based on that doubt, he was presented the Scrutinising Committee specially constituted for examining the cases. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioner was not absorbed as Helper due to the reason that lie had been a proxy in the name of one P. Vijayakumar, the contractor Linder whom lie worked. Based on that doubt, he was presented the Scrutinising Committee specially constituted for examining the cases. The Scrutinising Committee has examined the records and on review of the records such as Gate Pass, acquaintance roll for payment of wages, arrears of wages and the bonus, etc., it was found by the Committee that the signatures proved that there was a impersonation. It is also the further case of the respondents that since the signatures varied with regard to vital aspects in the style, the matter was referred to the Forensic Department for examination. The Department has also found the difference in the signatures. It is also the case of the respondents that after the earlier order of this Court, the Vigilance Officer has investigated into the matter and the Officer reported in the petitioner's favour. However, the report has not exonerated of the petitioner altogether. That apart the other averments by the petitioner in the writ petition were denied. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit to that controverting the averments made in the Counter affidavit of the respondents. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the petitioner has worked for 480 days as contract labourer under the respondents as admitted by the Superintendent Engineer CHP Division in his letter dated 25.1.2000 and during the period when lie has received the salary there was no variation in the signature. It is also contended by the learned counsel that in the seniority List drawn by the respondents the petitioner was shown in serial number 86. That apart, certificates were produced before the respondents to the effect that the Transfer Certificate produced by him from the school is genuine and the same has been verified by the respondents and at this point of time, it is not open to them to deny the signature, which according to the learned counsel, is only to deny the benefits due to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even assuming that the department found a variation in the signature, there was no proper enquiry and even before passing the impugned order no notice was given to petitioner for giving him an opportunity to explain. 6. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Limited, (1993) 3 S.C.C. 259 , in support of the contention that any act involving civil consequences by virtue of termination of service would amount to deprivation of the right to livelihood and the same is not fair. In that case, while dealing with the issue of giving reasonable opportunity to the employee on the basis of the principle of natural justice, the Supreme Court has laid down the law as follows: "It is thus well-settled law that right to life enshrined under Art.21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood. The order of termination of the service of an employee/workman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising not only his/her livelihood, but also the career and livelihood of dependents. Therefore, before taking any action putting an end to the tenure of an employee workman, fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity to put forth his case is given and domestic inquiry conducted complying with the principles of natural justice. In D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress the Constitution Bench, per majority, held that termination of the service of a workman giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof without inquiry offended Art.14. The order terminating the service of the employees was set aside." 7. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the impugned order which is a single line order merely based oil the Forensic Experts opinion, the petitioner was refused to be absorbed as a Helper. The respondents cannot be heard to explain in detail in their counter affidavit. To substantiate the said plea reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the contract labourers like the petitioner were not treated as employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and such contract labourers are found in some of the places in Tamil Nadu like North Chennai, Mettur and other places. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the contract labourers like the petitioner were not treated as employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and such contract labourers are found in some of the places in Tamil Nadu like North Chennai, Mettur and other places. Based oil the representations made by those persons to absorb them, the Board, in its proceedings dated 24.2.1999, has decided to absorb them as labourers, and from 1.5.1999 onwards, the contract labourer system was abolished in the respondent Electricity Board. As per the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board dated 28.4.1999, while explaining the movement of absorption of contract labourers in Thermal Station as regular employees, a detailed procedure has been laid down that stipulating all contractors should be absorbed as Helpers based oil seniority from among the persons who were already identified on 5.1.1998. Out of that seniority, the senior most would be absorbed as Helper for the Thermal Station and the juniors absorbed as Helpers in the vacancies available in the nearby distribution circles. A list has been prepared for the said purpose and the said proceedings also states that there will be no contract labourers in view of the supply of manpower. Learned counsel would also contend that in respect of the petitioner, when it was found that there was a variation in his signature, the same was verified and referred to the Forensic Department and based on the report of the Forensic Department dated 28.8.2001, it was found that there was impersonation. It is also the case of the petitioner that he in fact participated in the enquiry of the Forensic Department by putting his signature. Therefore, it is not open to him to refuse it as lie was aware of the enquiry by the Forensic Department. It is also contended by the learned counsel that in such circumstances, it is not proper for the petitioner to invoke the right under the Constitution of India so as to make this Court to conduct a roving enquiry about the entire proceedings conducted by the respondents. To support his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Master Marine Services Private Limited v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson Private Limited and others, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 138 . To support his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Master Marine Services Private Limited v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson Private Limited and others, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 138 . In that case, while discussing the award of a contract, the Supreme Court held that the award of contract is purely a commercial transaction, whether it is to a private party or a public body or a State and therefore, even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the High Court must exercise its discretionary power under Art.226 with great caution and such exercise should only be ill public interest and in making out a legal point, the Supreme Court has laid down the dictum as follows: "In Raunaq International Limited v. I.V.R. Construction Limited, it was observed that the award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial considerations, which would include, inter alia, the price at which the party is willing to work, whether the goods or services offered are of the requisite specifications and whether the person tendering is of the ability to deliver the goods or services as per specifications." "The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited, and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bonafide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the state, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Art.226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely oil the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court Should interfere." 9. Learned counsel for the respondents would say that the absorption of the contract labourer as Helpers is also synonymous to that and even assuming that there are some defects in the procedure, Art.226 is not the remedy for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in K.A. Chandrasekar v. Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, SSI Branch, Bhavani, Erode and others, (2005) 3 M.L.J 488 , to the proposition that the direction of a High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is not akin to all appeal before this Court and has laid down the dictum as follows for exercising the power. "The High Court does not go into or adjudicate the disputed question of the fact, especially the relevant facts are disputed and the dispute calls for all elaborate enquiry, which cannot be done by the High Court in a writ petition". Reliance is also placed in the judgment of this Court rendered in Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore v. A. Thangavelu and Others, (2005) 1 M.L.J. 622 : (2005) 1 C.T.C. 481 , to the effect that natural justice is not an unruly house. The rules of natural justice are flexible and are not a strait-jacket formula. In that case there was a factual controversy as to whether the enquiry officer had any conversation with the delinquent and made a statement that the enquiry report was not Prepared by him. The Division Bench held that such a serious factual controversy ought not to be decided in writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to decide such serious factual controversies. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on many judgments to substantiate his contention that in the case of disputed questions, writ jurisdiction is not a Proper remedy since it requires a thorough enquiry. 12. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on many judgments to substantiate his contention that in the case of disputed questions, writ jurisdiction is not a Proper remedy since it requires a thorough enquiry. 12. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. It is the case of the Petitioner that he has worked for 480 days as a contract labourer and at no Point of time the genuineness of his signature was disputed. His further grievance is that while it is an admitted fact that his signature was obtained for the Purpose of verifying the same by the Forensic Department, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that lie was not aware of the same. His contention is that the report is not served oil him before passing the impugned order in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner to absorption as a Helper. Even assuming that such a report is given to the Petitioner, it will not be useful for him Forensic report requires a deep consideration as to whether the signature put by the petitioner could be referred to the Forensic Department and the signature of the petitioner stated to have been made while he was in service are substantially different or there was a natural variation, etc., really requires a thorough enquiry, which cannot be done by this Court while exercising powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. It is not as if the petitioner is left with no alternate remedy. It is always open to him to approach the proper forum by filing a suit or by raising a dispute. In such a case, the Civil Court or the Labour Court can make a thorough enquiry and substantial relief can be given to him, even though it is true that the Forensic report has not been supplied to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. As the petitioner has a substantial remedy available, the same cannot be granted by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, since it requires a factual decision about the analysis of the report for variation of the signature and so on. As the petitioner has a substantial remedy available, the same cannot be granted by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, since it requires a factual decision about the analysis of the report for variation of the signature and so on. In the circumstances, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum challenging the impugned order of the respondents in refusing to absorb the Petitioner as a Helper ill the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.Ms. are closed. Writ petition dismissed.