KUALA LUMPUR — BFM Media Sdn Bhd has been ordered by the Industrial Court to pay RM358,400 to former producer and presenter Umapagan K Ampikaipakan after the court found that his dismissal over allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct was without just cause or excuse.
In a 98-page award dated September 21, Industrial Court chairman Pravin Kaur Jessy said the company had grounds to investigate the allegations against Umapagan, but the evidence presented was insufficient to establish misconduct on the balance of probabilities.
According to a report in FMT, Umapagan was issued a show-cause notice on Dec 24, 2018, before his employment was terminated with immediate effect on Jan 4, 2019.
The court, however, declined to order his reinstatement, noting that more than seven years had passed since his dismissal and that the employment relationship between the parties had broken down.
Instead, the court awarded him RM51,200 in compensation in lieu of reinstatement and RM307,200 in backwages, bringing the total award to RM358,400.
Pravin said several allegations relied upon by BFM were imprecise, uncertain in attribution, incomplete in documentation and untested in essential respects.
“Suspicion may have justified inquiry. Concern may have justified caution. But neither suspicion nor concern can take the place of proof.
“The court cannot conflate a reason to investigate with proof of misconduct, particularly where allegations of sexual harassment can have serious consequences for an employee’s reputation, dignity and livelihood,” she said.
The case arose after an anonymous email alleging sexual harassment at BFM was circulated in November 2018, following which the company appointed external investigators to look into the allegations.
BFM maintained that it had acted based on the findings of its independent investigation and that Umapagan’s conduct amounted to sexual harassment or, at the very least, inappropriate and unprofessional conduct.
However, the court found that Umapagan was materially disadvantaged in mounting his defence because the original messages and identities of some alleged complainants had been withheld from him.
Several allegations also emerged only after he had been interviewed by the investigators, leaving him without an opportunity to respond to them.
Pravin said the Industrial Court’s role was not merely to determine whether an employer had reasonable grounds to suspect an employee of misconduct.
“Possessing reasonable grounds to suspect an employee of an infraction does not relieve the employer of its burden of proof when the matter is brought for adjudication before the Industrial Court,” she said.
She also said it was “legally untenable” to expect an employee to comprehensively answer vague allegations involving unnamed interns or colleagues and messages allegedly sent several years earlier.
The court further found deficiencies in some screenshots relied upon by BFM, including the absence of the original messages and sufficient evidence linking them to the alleged sender or recipient.
Lawyers P Jayasingam, Thavaselvi Pararajasingam and Eve Hong represented Umapagan, while Yong Hon Cheong and S Sivagami represented BFM. – September 24, 2026