Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for setting- aside of the award passed by the Labour Court besides pleading for his reinstatement into service. The plea to challenge the award is that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner, which would be in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a House Man with the respondent Corporation on 15.12.1989. A case under Sections 324, 326 etc. was registered against him on 21.10.1998. The petitioner was arrested on 1.2.1999. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 1.2.1999 and was charge sheeted. The charge sheet was despatched to his home address, through the petitioner was in jail. The petitioner was subsequently reinstated on 10.4.2000 subject to the pending enquiry. He was acquitted of the criminal charge on 27.11.2000. Still, however, the petitioner was terminated on account of his absence from duty on 9.1.2001. 3. The petitioner pleads that the termination was ordered without supplying him copy of enquiry report or giving him opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner had filed an appeal against his termination. Subsequent thereto, he had raised a demand notice on 13.11.2001, when the dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court on 14.11.2002. The Labour Court has finally declined the reference on 16.7.2010, which the petitioner has now challenged through the present writ petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the management had pleaded that the petitioner had abandoned his job by absenting himself, for which he was charge sheeted. The petitioner submitted his reply, which was not found satisfactory, whereafter the Enquiry Officer was appointed. So, it is pleaded that proper enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report, whereafter show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.11.1999. In response to the same, no reply was received. 5. It is also pointed out that the petitioner alongwith his representative participated in the enquiry and on the last date of hearing i.e. on 27.7.2000 admitted the charge mentioned in the charge sheet. Not only that, thereafter the petitioner prayed for leniency while assuring the management that he will not commit any mistake in future. The Enquiry Officer had submitted the report on the basis of plea of the petitioner and he was issued show cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal. Not only that, thereafter the petitioner prayed for leniency while assuring the management that he will not commit any mistake in future. The Enquiry Officer had submitted the report on the basis of plea of the petitioner and he was issued show cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal. In this background, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 6. It is seen from the record that an exparte proceedings were initially held against the petitioner to go into his long absence. Subsequently, in order to give him full opportunity, the exparte proceedings were re-considered and the show cause notice served upon him, was withdrawn on 10.4.2000 and the petitioner was reinstated. The petitioner then availed the assistance of his coworker but again did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. He had then opted for assistance from another co-worker, Sh.Dhani Ram, who appeared and was supplied necessary documents. The petitioner thereafter admitted all the allegations on 27.7.2000. He was then issued a show cause notice and punished. 7. In the background of this evidence and the material on record, the Labour Court has declined the reference. The court has found that the respondents had conducted fair and impartial enquiry. The reason that the petitioner was earlier arrested would also not make any difference as he continued to remain absent even subsequently, to which he pleaded guilty. 8. The first hurdle, which the counsel was required to cross to seek interference in the impugned award, was to explain his action in pleading guilty. In this regard, the counsel has placed heavy reliance on Jagdish Prasad Saxena v. State of Madhya Bharat (Now Madhya Pradesh), A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1070. The facts in this case were entirely different and the ratio, as would emerge from this case, can not be applied to the present case. This was a case of an employee, who was working as Distillery Inspector and was charge sheeted on the basis of alleged admission he had made in the course of enquiry directed against some other Government servant in connection with commission of certain offence. Later, he was removed from service on the strength of alleged admission without holding formal enquiry, as was the requirement under the service rules. Later, he was removed from service on the strength of alleged admission without holding formal enquiry, as was the requirement under the service rules. In addition, it was noticed that the statement made by the employee did not amount to a clear or unambiguous admission of his guilt and so failure to hold a formal enquiry constituted a serious infirmity in ordering dismissal of the employee. The facts in the said case, thus, can not even be remotely attracted to the facts in the instant case. 9. In the case of Jagdish Prasad Saxena (supra), no enquiry was held and the employee was dismissed on the basis of an admission made by him while making a statement in the course of an enquiry which was against some other Government servant. Even the statement, which was made, was not found to be a clear admission. The Court had, therefore, observed that departmental enquiry is not an empty formality. It is a serious proceeding intending to give the officer concerned a chance to meet the charge and prove his innocence. In the absence of enquiry, the court found that it would not be fair to strain facts against the employee and to hold that in view of the admission made by him in the enquiry that the separate enquiry against him would have served no useful purpose. This was found to be a matter of speculation, which was wholly out of place in dealing with the cases of public servant. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has made admission during the enquiry, which was in progress against him. It is not a case where no enquiry is held. It is also not a case where there is any ambiguity or confusion about the admission made by the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded guilty to the charge and this admission, as made, is clear and categorical. Once a person makes an admission and pleads for leniency of punishment, then it can be said that he had well understood the implication of his plea of guilty or admission and such a plea or admission/confession can not be termed as something he made under some mistake. It is not a case where the petitioner did not understand the effect or implication of his pleading guilty. It is not a case where the petitioner did not understand the effect or implication of his pleading guilty. The ratio of law in the case of Jagdish Prasad Saxena (supra) is not at all relevant or otherwise attracted to the facts of the present case. Once the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charge and had sought leniency, it would clearly indicate that he had understood the effect of pleading guilty. As provided in Rule 8(9) and (10) of Punishment and Appeal Rules, once the delinquent employees pleads guilty to the charge, the Enquiry Officer is required to record that plea and sign the same. The inquiry authority shall then return a finding of guilt as is laid down in Rule 8(10) of the said Rules. There is no requirement of holding an inquiry and that plea if clearly understood, is required to be recorded as a finding by the Enquiry Officer. In such an eventuality, there would hardly be any need to proceed further. Since the finding was based on the plea of the petitioner, the finding was known to the petitioner and, thus, supply of copy of enquiry report was an empty formality and a meaningless ritual in such a case. There is even no proper pleading to show that no enquiry proceeding was supplied to the petitioner. 11. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.