BFM Ordered to Pay RM358,400 After Unjust Dismissal Ruling

A landmark ruling from the Industrial Court has delivered a clear reminder that suspicion is not proof even when allegations are as serious as sexual harassment. In a 98-page decision dated September 21, Chairman Pravin Kaur Jessy ordered BFM Media Sdn Bhd to pay former producer and presenter Umapagan K Ampikaipakan a total of RM358,400, finding that his 2019 dismissal was carried out without just cause or excuse. The judgment examines the gap between conducting a fair inquiry and establishing proven misconduct, and where the employer fell short.

How the Case Began

The chain of events traces back to November 2018, when an anonymous email circulated alleging sexual harassment within the station. BFM appointed external investigators to look into the claims. On December 24, Umapagan received a show-cause notice; less than two weeks later, on January 4, 2019, his employment was terminated with immediate effect. The company maintained throughout that it acted responsibly on the strength of an independent investigation and that his conduct amounted to sexual harassment or, at minimum, inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour.

The court’s role, however, was not to decide whether BFM had reason to be concerned; it was to decide whether the alleged misconduct had been proven. And on that standard, the evidence failed.

Where the Evidence Fell Short

Pravin Kaur Jessy was unequivocal in her assessment: “Suspicion may have justified inquiry. Concern may have justified caution. But neither suspicion nor concern can take the place of proof.” The court identified multiple critical flaws in the case against Umapagan:

• Vague and unattributed allegations: Several claims were imprecise, lacked clear attribution to specific complainants, or referred to unnamed interns and colleagues.

• Withheld information: Underlying messages and the identities of some alleged victims were not disclosed to Umapagan, materially disadvantaging his ability to respond.

• Late allegations: Some claims emerged only after he had been interviewed by investigators leaving him no opportunity to address them.

• Unreliable documentation: Screenshots presented as evidence lacked original messages and sufficient verification linking them to the purported sender or recipient.

“It is legally untenable,” the judgment states, “to expect an employee to comprehensively answer vague allegations involving unnamed individuals and messages allegedly sent years earlier.” The court rejected the idea that having reasonable grounds to suspect relieved the employer of the burden of proving misconduct when the matter came to adjudication.

The Award and Remedy

The court declared the dismissal unlawful. However, it declined to order reinstatement, noting that more than seven years had passed and the employment relationship had irreparably broken down. Instead, it awarded:

• RM51,200 — compensation in lieu of reinstatement

• RM307,200 — backwages

• Total: RM358,400

Umapagan’s claim for punitive damages was rejected. The court acknowledged that BFM had received serious allegations, launched an investigation, and considered his response meaning the company had acted in good faith rather than malice, even if its process was flawed.

Significance of the Ruling

This decision strikes a careful balance. It does not dismiss the importance of taking sexual harassment seriously the court explicitly accepted that BFM had valid grounds to investigate. What it does insist upon is due process: the right to know the full case against you, the ability to test the evidence, and the requirement that allegations be proven to a standard, not just believed.

For employers, the message is clear: an investigation that does not disclose key details, names, or evidence cannot sustain a finding of misconduct. For employees, it affirms that reputation and livelihood are protected by procedural fairness and that serious claims demand serious proof.

“The company’s case, though grave in allegation, was not made good in proof,” Pravin observed. In the end, this ruling is not about minimising the gravity of sexual harassment it is about upholding the standards that must be met when such claims are made. A fair system protects those who come forward, but it also protects those who are accused and ensures that no one’s career ends on the basis of suspicion alone.