Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tinka  Zapryanova

Borgo Accounting Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Paul Carroll Solr.,   O’Mara Geraghty McCourt

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00061655-003

19/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00061655-004

19/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00061655-005

19/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00061655-006

19/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00061655-007

19/02/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. The matter was heard over two days. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way. There were two hearing days assigned to this matter

In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice.  I additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there was to be a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 19th of February 2024.

Over the course of the two days, the Complainant was not represented and made her own case. The Complainant provided me with a comprehensive submission dated the 24th of April 2024. The Complainant was also given an opportunity to give oral evidence. The Evidence adduced by the complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

No objection was raised to any of the materials/documents relied upon by the Complainant in the making of her case.

The Complainant raises a number of issues in her workplace relations complaint form which issued on the 19th of February 2022 some two and a half weeks after the termination of the employment.

The Complainant alleges she was discriminated against in the workplace and the Complainant says that she was constructively dismisses.

The Complainant has additionally asserted three specific contraventions of the Terms of Employment (information) Act 1994 by her previous Employer.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

On the first day of hearing the Complainant and the Respondent confirmed that the Complainant had issued a second ADJ File (ADJ 51399). This contained a Payment of Wages claim and the parties agreed to have this matter addressed through this hearing.

I understand that between the first and second dates of hearing that the Complainant issued a separate complaint form ADJ File 52526. This ADJ File 52526 was not before me and has yet to be assigned a Case Officer and a date for hearing. It is noted that the Complainant prepared a further submission as of the 3rd of July 2024 which was just before the resumed hearing date of July 10th. This submission ought properly be read alongside the newly issued ADJ File 52526. The Respondent objected to any part of this submission being put into the Adjudication process before me in circumstances where the Complainant had already given and completed her evidence on the first day of hearing in April 2024. It is submitted that an entirely fresh submission introduced at this late stage would be unfair. I agree that I cannot re-run the complainant’s evidence as she has already been cross examined on foot of the oral evidence given by her. I accepted the Respondent position in this regard. It was not possible to read this most recent submission into evidence where it might contradict or enhance the Complainant’s oral evidence already given and completed. The second day of hearing was given over to the Respondent’s evidence with both parties invited to give a final oral submission in the afternoon.

I confirm that the Complainant was not satisfied to have this submission set aside and stated that this decision interfered with her right to have her case fully heard.

The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Company Director (Mr. E) gave evidence on behalf of the Company. The Respondent provided me with two written submissions. The first was dated the 18th of April 2024 and was received in advance of the first hearing date. The second written submission was received on the 21st of June 2024 and was received in response to a second ADJ file (ADJ 51399) which issued in April of 2024 and concerned a Payment of Wages claim. The parties agreed on the first day of hearing that both of  these ADJ files  50260 and 51399 could be heard together.

All oral evidence was heard following an Affirmation. The Respondent witness was challenged by the Complainant.

The Respondent rejects that there has been a Constructive Dismissal or Discrimination and rejects any contravention of Employment Statutes.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

The Complainant gave extensive evidence over the course of the first day of hearing.

The Complainant commenced her employment as an Accountant with Icon Accounting on 26th July 2021. The Complainant was placed in the Kalc Department.  The Complainant worked on a part time basis of 25 hours per week. The Complainant told me that an ongoing issue with her back and chronic back pain has meant that she cannot work longer hours. The complainant had been in a car accident which had resulted in these injuries. The Complainant it is noted had a comprehensive Contract of employment with Icon. At the beginning of May 2022 all staff of Kalc Accounting were notified that a merger was planned between Kalc Dept of Icon Accounting and AEON Accountants. The Complainant was due to be part of this merger.

I have had sight of a letter of the 29th of June 2022 addressed to the Complainant which purports to initiate the 30-day consultation period required to effect a lawful transfer of business. The letter confirms:

“Your contract of employment transfers to the new entity and there is no change in your terms and conditions of employment. There is continuity of service and you retain all entitlements under your contract of employment that you had in Icon Accountancy ..”

The date of transfer was the 31st of July 2022. Ultimately the newly created accountancy company was named Borgo Accounting Limited. Mr AE came on board as the Managing Director as a direct result of this merger.

The Complainant has understood that this merger and transfer has meant that she should receive a new and updated Contract of Employment. In particular, the Complainant was anxious to confirm that the terms and conditions enjoyed under the previous employment had been transferred and would be fully recognised moving forward. It was put to the complainant in cross examination that she perhaps had misunderstood the legal implications. The 2021 Contract of employment together with the terms and conditions (contained therein) continued to validly cover her ongoing employment in the aftermath of the August 2022 transfer. The Complainant it was suggested was mixing up the idea of a “new employer” with “new employment”. I think in this regard the Respondent is correct.

However, I do note that the complainant did subsequently have a changed term or condition concerning paid sick leave foisted on her without consultation. This only became an issue after the complainant had resigned (or been constructively dismissed) and therefore could not be challenged under the tenure of the employment.

After the merger the Complainant described a very intense and busy time in the aftermath of the merger. She was reporting into the overall Managing Director AE up to the end of 2022.  The Complainant was happy to play her part, but she was working well in excess of the 25 hours a week that she was obliged to work under her Contractual arrangement. The Complainant described having to stay back until 8pm on the 25th of November 2022 by reason of some errors made with the outsourcing arrangements.

When the Complainant attended her G.P. around this time with ongoing back issues, she was certified out of the workplace for two weeks. It was while she was out of the workplace that the complainant was notified of some internal changes including some non-competitive promotion and the introduction of a new line Manager GN. The Document “Borgo, accounting redefined” was opened to me and on foot of its contents I note that the Complainant wrote to AE expressing her disappointment. In particular she felt that “

without any annual appraisal reviews taking place the former AEON staff were promoted whilst the former Kalc staff were demoted.”

I accept the Complainant genuinely felt this is exactly what happened, and it is an unavoidable fact that objectively looked at the complainant appears to be correct.

The Complainant has given evidence that she believes that the decision to bypass the Complainant for the purpose of promotion had something to do with her nationality and/or her disability and/or her family status. The Complainant has asserted that she was more senior and had more experience than either of the two Aeon Employees that were promoted. The Complainant noted that all three newly created Management positions went to Irish people. The Complainant believes that the Complainant’s ongoing health issues with her back must have mitigated against her being considered for any promotion. The Complainant believes that AE was not happy to have his decisions challenged.

Mr. AE gave evidence that as part of the merger, a consultancy company came on board to help put best practices in place and to develop an ideal team structure. The restructuring which was actually implemented was born of the advice given. He says that at board level they were discussing how and where to fit all members of staff into the new structure. AE believed that there was no change in the complainant’s role – she remained an Accountant.

I can accept that on the face of it the Complainant has identified a restructuring process that seemed to exclude her. Whether this was ineptitude on the part of Management or grounded in racial discrimination or a bias against an individual with a disability is unclear. I have to note, one way or another, that no complaint was raised within six months of these events.

In his defence AE says that he had met Ms. Nolan and had identified her as having the potential to be a huge asset to the burgeoning company. He felt that the complainant was more introverted and methodical. He made these deductions, he says, observing her and all staff in the six months up to the re-structuring. He had in fact not advertised for a role and had met her Ms. Nolan quite by chance. Internally, AE accepts that he had promoted two of his own employees both Irish males with no discernible disability. On reflection AE accepts that he should have given the complainant the opportunity to apply for roles instead of assigning roles in the way that he had. Moving forward he intended to be more transparent, he said. He did note that the complainant never applied for a later production Manager role that came up in April of 2023 and was an open competition.

It is noted that the Complainant had also put forward an inverted family status argument whereby her colleagues were given more accommodation by reason of having children then she had been given by reason of having no children. I found this argument to be without merit.

The Complainant sought to make the best of this situation by expressing her clear dissatisfaction and then requesting a workplace scenario which she believed would be better suited to her hours. The Complainant requested that AE remove her from the client accounts and instead put her exclusively into making Income Tax returns. The Complainant brokered this bespoke arrangement which allowed her to move from 5 days to four days a week. Working 6 hours per day. This was a reduction in one hour of work per week at the same rate of pay. This formula was approved by AE and GN.

I do not get the impression that AE accepted that his re-structuring formula was hugely upsetting for the Complainant, nor have I formed the impression that AE recognised the Complainant’s ability one way or another. He says that she appeared happy from January 2023 onwards.

In any event, the Complainant believed she worked much better concentrating on one area rather than working across a broad range of disciplines which meant having to collaborate with others but also meant being constantly interrupted by others. The Complainant accepted that from time to time she was called upon to help others in the workplace. With her level of experience and understanding of the client base she was happy to help. The Complainant gave evidence that she believed her part time status (four days at six hours a day) was better suited to doing the Income Tax returns.

Towards the end of 2023 tax deadlines started to loom. The Complainant gave evidence that she was called upon to assist with Corporation Tax deadlines for former corporate clients who had now been assigned elsewhere. This task needed to be completed for in and around the 20th of September 2023. The Complainant also needed to help with the sole trader accounts and VAT returns. The deadline for Income Tax is set for Mid November. The Complainant assumed that others in the company would be assigned to help her ensure the deadline would be met. The Complainant had had some assistance assigned to her in the person of C. There were about 250 Income Tax returns to prepare for clients. She had already largely completed 170 of these she says.

The Complainant said it was clear that they were extremely short staffed as a lot of experienced people had moved on or were out on parental leave. The Complainant was looking for a team effort to get this class of returns (Income Tax) over the line. She particularly sought this help at a staff meeting on the 9th of October 2023.  She was denied this by Mr. AE who asked the Complainant to hold back after the meeting for the express purpose of telling her that this was her problem and she needed to get the job done. The Complainant makes the case that it was unrealistic of AE to expect that she would ever be able to complete this mammoth task working for only 24 hours a week. AE knew or should have known that (as with other deadlines) a team effort would be needed in the final weeks.

I accept that Complainant felt belittled and perhaps intimidated by AEs hard line. AE accepted that there was not a great atmosphere generally in the workplace in late 2023. Everyone was under pressure. The Complainant has asserted that this interaction amounted to a discrimination and that the Manager AE only treated her that way because she was from another country. The Complainant said this directly to AEs face. I am not inclined to accept this allegation. AE was certainly presenting as being short tempered and as having poor management skills (as previously evidenced by his January restructuring), but I cannot find there was any racial motivation in his words or actions.

I understand that the complainant made the allegation of racial discrimination then and there on the 9th of October.  I think that AE did the right thing in this instance when he abruptly finished the interaction and asked the Complainant to put her concerns in writing so that the issues raised could be handled through the Company policy and procedures. An email of the 9th of October confirms this is what was to happen.  I note AE gave evidence that he was very upset and indeed blindsided by this allegation. He vehemently rejects any suggestion that he would discriminate on the grounds of race and he points to the diverse staff working with him. AE also confirmed that all HR issues are outsourced, and he started taking advice at this time on the best way froward if a grievance was triggered.

The Complainant did submit a lengthy Grievance document on the 15th of October 2023. An initial meeting was held on the 1st of November 2023 between the Complainant and AE together with a note taker. It seems to me the purpose of this meeting was to confirm the Grievances and to ask the Complainant to elaborate on same as might be needed. This meeting seems to have finished on an even note with the promise by the notetaker that she would write up the notes for sign off before proceeding to the next step. For reasons unknown, the notes were not signed off on by any of the attendees until well into December 2023.

I understand that despite the initial chastisement of the Complainant, AE did in fact assign staff to assist with the final work required to get the balance of the Income Tax work over the line. The Complainant asserts that she had always done the bulk of the work in advance but simply did not have enough hours in the days to tie up the loose ends. AE noted that other staff were annoyed that the complainant was so far behind given she was only dealing with this singular aspect of the business.

The Complainant also asserts that she had done a lot of overtime during this period of time. I have seen the Complainant’s calculations in this regard which show that the complainant worked up to 15 hours extra in the run up to Income tax deadline.

The Complainant says that there was still a tremendous amount of pressure in the workplace through November 2023. As many experienced staff were gone or had unaccountably been given leave during the busiest time of the year. She says her knowledge and know how was being sought after by all staff. She says she was the only qualified Accountant with no team to support her. She had to beg for assistance and yet was expected to freely give assistance. She was always the go to person.

By the end of November, the complainant was exhausted, and her back problems had flared up. The Complainant went out on sick leave for two weeks to the 11th of December 2023.

On her return to the workplace in mid-December 2023 the complainant noted a definite shift in what was being expected of her. She was no longer expected to just deal with just the Income Tax issues and was now being assigned clients. Clients she now had to handle in full. Clients she was unfamiliar with. This was not what she had agreed with AE in January of 2023. This was a stealth return, she felt, to how she had previously worked, and which required a 9 to 5, five days a week, input. This was not consistent with her working hours as agreed with AE.  The Complainant knew from previous experience that working in this way would exacerbate her back problems.

The Complainant references the fact that she had at this point in time been looking for Contractual certainty from management. This had been a conversation she had had with her line Manager as far back as July of 2023. In particular, the complainant had been looking for an up-to-date job description to reflect the fact that the complainant was intended to work exclusively on Income tax returns. This is what she had been doing from January to September 2023. However, her work type was noticeably changing over November and December 2023. The Complainant perceived that the Income tax work was being handled by someone else. The Complainant says it felt like the ground was constantly moving beneath her feet. The Complainant asserts that the quid pro quo for being overlooked for promotion the year previously, was to get herself assigned to concentrate on a job that was within her remit and would provide workplace stability and job assurance. In December 2023 the Complainant felt that this was slipping away from her.

It was in these circumstances that the complainant tendered her resignation on the 14th of December 2023. The letter of resignation reads:

“I am resigning my position due to work-related pressure and stress, which are issues for my health.

Thank you for the opportunities afforded to me in the last year and a half at Borgo. I wish everyone on the team much success in the coming years. I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss the transition of my duties.”

By way of reply AE writes:

“I acknowledge the receipt of your resignation from the position of Senior Accountant at Borgo.

 Thank you for the hard work and effort that you have shown during your time.

I will come back to you regarding the other points below next week.

I won't say anything to the team until you have a chance to speak to them.”

Despite the seemingly cordial nature of this correspondence, the complainant said in evidence that she was being squeezed out.

It is noted that at about the same time as she was resigning the complainant also signed the notes for the first grievance process meeting. In effect this left this process hanging in mid-air and unable to go forward.

The Contract of employment sets out its Notice requirements and these are in line with the Minimum Notice and Terms of employment Acts which meant that the complainant was expected to give two weeks’ Notice up to her final date. In fact, the complainant offered to work up to the end of January 2024.

In her follow up correspondence, the Complainant notes that she was owed 29.5 hours overtime for 2023. It is noted that the Complainant’s 2021 contract of employment (which had not been replaced in the course of the employment) does not allow for overtime – unless the overtime is at the weekend.

The Complainant had a formal meeting with AE on the 20th of December. In an unusual step, AE provided the complainant with an updated Contract of employment – something she had been agitating for in the last five months. AE also provided the Complainant with the finished notes from the grievance meeting which had been conducted back on November 1st. it seems that it took all three signatories some time to sign off on these notes.

As I understand it, the Complainant’s last day of actual work was December 20th. Thereafter the complainant went on a combination of annual leave, and paid leave including payment in lieu of working the notice period. This was a generous notice period provided by AE. The complainant was employed up to the 31st of January 2024.

The workplace relations complaint form issued on the 19th of February 2024.

My sense, having considered all the evidence, is that the Complainant herein may well have had a claim of discrimination against her employer when two of her Irish male colleagues got promoted over her in circumstances that appeared to be underhand and exclusionary. This may also have played into a claim of discrimination on the grounds of her part time status and of her having a recognised disability. However, the complainant did not trigger a statutory complaint in the aftermath. Instead, the complainant leveraged that situation to bring her own demands to the table. The Complainant sought, and was given the right, to work exclusively on Income tax returns for all the clients in the company who needed them. This was work which suited her hours, her days, her capabilities and her temperament. This operated well for most of the year. However, when it came time to finalize and file the returns, the work was overwhelming. The complainant perceived that AE was instrumental in preventing anyone assisting her get this work over the line. A Grievance procedure was triggered arising out of the interaction and disagreement between the Complainant and AE. As there was no HR Manager the Grievance process appeared to my mind to be getting a light touch so that whilst a meeting took place no further steps were generated. The notes of the first meeting were pretty perfunctory and hardly required the big sign-off which was repeatedly raised in evidence to justify an inordinate delay.

As key members of staff were leaving, AE seemingly was directing that the complainant fall back into her old role, and it seemed to the complainant that she was in mid-December 2023 being asked to manage accounts and do work that she had not been deemed worthy of or being capable of performing in December 2022.

It was in these circumstances that the Complainant resigned. As I have noted, the communications around the resignation were perfectly cordial, but I have to note that AE did not allow for a cooling off period and did not ask the complainant to reflect on the decision to resign. I must wonder if this inaction on his part is consistent with her belief that he wanted her out?

On the other hand, I also have to recognise that AE maybe did not anticipate this resignation would happen when it did. After all, there was a live Grievance process which might have been expanded to allow for a discussion of the workload which the complainant perceived was being foisted on her. Having listened to the complainant over the course of two days I am satisfied that she was an Employee who was well able to advocate on her own behalf. This incomplete utilisation of the grievance procedure is important when it comes to assessing loss.

Having reflected on the above, I am turning my attention to the individual claims brought before me as follows:

CA-00061655-003 Complaint of a contravention of Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 -  

3.—(1) An employer shall, not later than one monthafter the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment,

I accept that the Respondent is entitled to presume that the 2021 Contract of employment was still validly operable after the Transfer of Undertaking.

CA-00061655-004 Complaint of a contravention of section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 -

5.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than—

(a) the day on which the change takes effect, or

(b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure.

I accept that the employer agreed certain fundamental changes to the particulars of the Contract of Employment which existed between the parties. This was in January of 2023. This included a change in hours, a subsequent change in the hourly rate of pay and a change in job description. The Complainant was anxious to have these details recorded and consolidated. This did not happen. It did not happen on each and every day that the Respondent failed to provide the complainant with the written particulars starting on the day on which the changes took effect.

CA-00061655-005 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

In circumstances where the complaint form issued in February of 2024, I do not have jurisdiction to hear any allegations of discrimination which may or may have occurred in and around December of 2022. This falls well outside the cognisable period.

In addition, the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the six-month period immediately preceding the date on which the Workable Relations complaint form issued – the 19th of February 2024.

CA-00061655-006 -Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

On balance I accept that the Complainant was constructively dismissed in December of 2023. The Complainant had not felt supported by the Managing director of the newly merged company. This lack of support started as far back as the re-structuring in December of 2022. The Complainant felt that AE did not place any great value in her contribution and even though he agreed to allow her deal exclusively with the Income Tax work he allowed her to be called upon to do the work of others whilst resenting that she should make the same request of colleagues. In assessing compensation, I have to be mindful of two things. Firstly, that the complainant should have pursued the Grievance process to its end point as this might have provided a forum for thrashing out all issues. Secondly, I have to be mindful of the fact that the complainant was not been in a position to work or look for work since December of 2023. The complainant cannot therefore make the case that she has incurred financial loss as a result of not being in a workplace. The complainant’s ongoing financial loss arises because of a disability.

7.1 (b) (ii)  of the UD Act states that 

“if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances”

CA-00061655-007 Complaint of a contravention of section 6G of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 –

Mandatory training

6G.— Where an employer is required by law or by a collective agreement to provide training to an employee to carry out the work for which he or she is employed, such training shall —

(a) be provided to the employee free of cost,

(b) count as working time, and

(c) where possible, take place during working hours.

The Complainant argued that she was entitled to have any and all training, including Compulsory professional Development Training be paid for by the employer. I do not agree that this type of training is included in the mandatory training envisaged in the Section 6G of the Act.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 –

The complaint herein is not well founded and fails.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 –

The complaint herein is well founded and I order the employer to pay to the employee compensation in the amount of  €1,282.00 which I consider just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances and which I know does not exceed 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 –

The complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination having occurred within the six-month period immediately preceding the 19th of February 2024. I cannot look beyond that period.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 –

I am satisfied that the complainant was constructively dismissed. In awarding compensation, I have as previously noted taken into account a failure to exhaust the internal grievance process as well as the Complainant’s inability to establish a remunerative type financial loss.

7.1 (b) (ii) states that 

“if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances”

I am satisfied that it is just and equitable to award the sum of €1,923.00 having regard to all the circumstances.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 –

The complaint herein is not well founded and fails.