You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 8, 2025

Thailand’s Rules on Retirement and Severance Pay for Workers Over 60

As Thailand transitions into an aged society, retirement policy and workplace protections for older workers have come into sharper focus. With public sentiment increasingly open to working beyond the traditional retirement age, questions about employee rights and employer obligations are more relevant than ever.

In October 2025, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul proposed increasing the statutory retirement age to 65 for government officers, citing Thailand’s aged-society status and the potential social and economic benefits of longer working lives. While academics and stakeholders have raised concerns about systemic impacts, public opinion remains divided, with many workers signaling a willingness to continue working beyond the current norm.

Against this backdrop, it’s worth revisiting what the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA) requires in regard to retirement and severance pay. This article explains the current legal landscape under the LPA, with a focus on retirement and severance pay for employees over 60, recent judicial developments, and practical options for structuring postretirement engagements.

Retirement as Termination Under the LPA

Under the LPA, retirement—whether set by agreement between employer and employee or unilaterally stipulated by the employer—is deemed a termination of employment. As a result, employees who retire under such terms are entitled to severance pay.

The law also adds a default rule: if there is no agreed or prescribed retirement age, or if the prescribed retirement age exceeds 60, an employee aged 60 or older may declare an intention to retire. The declaration takes effect 30 days after notice, and the employer must pay severance accordingly.

In short, retirement triggered by agreement, the employer’s work rules, or an employee’s valid notice is treated as a termination, and statutory severance pay is owed.

Hiring or Rehiring Employees Over 60

Practical issues arise when an employer’s work rules set a retirement age that does not exceed 60, yet the employer hires or rehires an individual older than 60. The LPA’s default retirement-by-notice mechanism applies only where there is no retirement provision at all or where the prescribed age exceeds 60. It does not expressly address situations where the employer maintains a 60-year retirement rule and the individual’s employment commences after reaching 60.

Recent judgments from the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases have addressed “retirement on demand” scenarios and, notably, have treated the retirement rule as inapplicable to employees whose employment began after the stated retirement age in the work rules. In effect, for such employees, the court deemed there to be no applicable retirement rule to trigger retirement as termination or retirement by notice. The result is a protection gap: employees hired after age 60 in establishments with a 60-year retirement rule may be unable to rely on the LPA’s retirement statute to retire with severance pay. In practice, these employees may have to continue working until resignation or employer-initiated termination, with severance pay and other outcomes depending on the grounds for dismissal.

From a policy perspective, this gap may discourage the rehiring or hiring of older workers and may reduce their bargaining leverage—particularly in lower-wage roles where bespoke contractual terms are uncommon.

Continued Employment Beyond Retirement Age

According to a recent Supreme Court judgment, if an employee continues working for the same employer beyond the designated retirement age without having received severance pay, the employment relationship is considered continuous. If the employer later terminates employment, statutory severance is calculated on the employee’s total length of service, using the final wage rate.

This confirms that employment may lawfully continue beyond the retirement age and that severance pay must then reflect the entire continuous service, not merely the postretirement period.

Reemployment After Retirement

If an employee retires, the employment ends, and severance is paid, the employer may rehire the individual under a new employment contract. If that new employment lasts at least 120 consecutive days, the employer must pay statutory severance for that subsequent period upon termination, calculated based on the final wage under the new contract.

Fixed-term arrangements do not automatically avoid severance. To qualify for the LPA’s fixed-term exemption, the contract must meet all of the following criteria:

  • Employment is in a special project outside the employer’s ordinary business with fixed commencement and completion, the work is temporary with fixed commencement and completion, or the work is seasonal and limited to a particular season.
  • The total term does not exceed two years.
  • The contract is in writing from the outset, specifies the end date, and contains no extension clause.

Even where a fixed-term exemption is structured, if the employee effectively continues performing the same duties as before retirement in a manner inconsistent with the exemption criteria, the employer may still owe severance when the engagement ends.

Engagement as an Independent Contractor

Employers sometimes consider consultancy or services agreements after an employee’s retirement. If the relationship is truly a hire-of-work situation rather than employment, statutory severance under the LPA does not apply. However, the actual nature of the relationship matters more than the form of the agreement, as courts will consider issues of control, integration, exclusivity, supervision, and economic dependence to determine whether the arrangement is, in fact, employment for LPA purposes. If it is recharacterized as employment, severance and other LPA obligations may be required.

Practical Guidance for Employers and Employees

Navigating retirement and postretirement employment requires careful attention to both legal requirements and practical business needs. Employers and older employees looking to enter into employment relationships should consider the following recommendations:

  • Clarify the retirement framework in writing. Ensure work rules and contracts align with the LPA and specify whether and how retirement applies to employees hired after 60.
  • Decide clearly on whether to pursue continued employment or true reemployment. If employment continues past the retirement age without severance, anticipate severance on total service upon later termination. If instead there is a clean break and rehire, there should be clear documentation of the end of the first employment and payment of severance.
  • Use fixed-term contracts only where the LPA’s exemption criteria are genuinely met. Avoid duties and practices that undermine the exemption (e.g., rolling renewals, core business work not truly temporary in nature).
  • Vet consultancy arrangements carefully. Align the actual working relationship with independent contractor hallmarks if severance avoidance is a business objective, and avoid control and integration features characteristic of employment.
  • Address the post-60 hiring gap. When hiring after 60 under an age 60 retirement rule, consider expressly agreeing to a contractual retirement mechanism consistent with the LPA, or clarifying that no retirement provision applies and setting expectations regarding termination and severance.

Whether extending employment, rehiring, or engaging consultants, careful structuring and documentation can mitigate severance exposure and compliance risk under the LPA. By proactively addressing these considerations with the help of advice tailored to the specific circumstances and business objectives, employers and employees can foster fair, compliant, and mutually beneficial postretirement working arrangements.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 18, 2023
On August 16, 2023, Laos’ Prime Minister’s Office issued Notice No. 1502/PMO, which increases the minimum wage for all workers in Laos. This increase is a continuation of the stepped increases in the minimum wage that began in mid-2022. The recent notice increases the minimum monthly wage from LAK 1,300,000 (approx. USD 66) to LAK 1,600,000 (approx. USD 82), in accordance with an agreement reached in the government’s ordinary session in July 2023. The new minimum wage rate will take effect on October 1, 2023. This is the third minimum wage increase in Laos since June 2022. Two of the main factors responsible for this heightened frequency of minimum wage increases are the depreciation of the Lao kip against foreign currencies and inflation in the price of goods for daily consumption. These stepped increases also show the government’s proactive approach toward addressing the cost-of-living crisis in Laos and its effect on low-wage workers. For more details on the new minimum wage, or on any other labor and employment matters in Laos, please contact Dino Santaniello at [email protected] or +856 21 262 355.
July 7, 2023
Tilleke & Gibbins is pleased to announce the release of Employment Law Basics in Southeast Asia. This publication serves as an indispensable resource for businesses navigating the complex landscape of employment law in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Authored by Tilleke & Gibbins’ regional team of employment law specialists, the guide provides a detailed overview of key employment law topics essential for businesses operating or planning to expand their operations in Southeast Asia. From employment contracts to termination procedures, each topic is examined in depth to ensure businesses are well-equipped to comply with local regulations and protect their interests. Key topics covered in the guide include: Employment contracts Probationary period Minimum wage Social security and statutory payments Working hours Leave and holidays Work rules Termination Foreign employees Data protection Remote work AI and automation Our guide offers multinational corporations establishing a presence in the region and local enterprises alike practical insights and actionable advice tailored to the unique regulatory environments in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. To access the full guide, please download the PDF below.
April 28, 2023
Instead of the typical dystopian scene of flames, wastelands of shattered buildings, and robotic overlords policing the remaining humans, our actual dystopian future may be a workplace filled only with men named Jared who once played lacrosse in high school. This may sound far-fetched, but one resume-screening tool was found to be using an algorithm that concluded two factors were most determinative of job performance: the name Jared and a history of playing lacrosse in high school. The frailties of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in recruitment and hiring could transform our workforces in unpredictable ways. If employers blindly follow AI outcomes without a deeper examination of how the algorithmic decision is reached, hiring outcomes may be not only ridiculous but also discriminatory. Risks of AI-Reliant Hiring Some employers have enthusiastically embraced AI as a way to reduce costs and replace human bias in the recruitment process. Human recruiters do not have a great track record; for example, in France, discrimination in recruitment has posed such a serious problem that the government submits false work biographies with ethnic names to identify and punish employers that unreasonably reject qualified ethnic applicants. Unfortunately, AI is modeled on human thinking, so it may amplify our own prejudices and errant conclusions while giving the appearance of providing a fair and clean process. AI typically learns inductively by training on examples and historical data. Factors such as exclusion of certain groups from educational or career opportunities has often shaped this data, so AI’s decisions may amplify this past prejudice. For instance, Amazon experimented with mechanized recruitment in 2014, but abandoned these efforts prior to implementation after the AI tool selected a predominantly male workforce. The AI learned by analyzing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over the last 10 years. Since over this period
April 3, 2023
Most employers know that terminating employees for poor job performance is not easy. But it is actually legally possible—if employers have the right approach and take specific precautionary measures. However, failing to take these precautions can mean that an employer is either stuck with an incompetent employee or on the losing end of a lawsuit for unfair termination. This article will lay out some essential considerations for employers in Thailand regarding termination of employment for poor performance. First, understand that “poor work performance” is a lack of performance or ability, or an inability to work with other employees. It does not constitute a violation of work rules or regulations. In some cases, however, an employee’s failure to act in accordance with lawful instructions or commands of the employer, resulting in poor work performance, could also be considered a violation of work rules or regulations. This may be the case if the work rules or regulations clearly state that an employee must strictly comply with the employer’s instructions or commands. Second, an employer can, in fact, terminate an employee due to poor work performance. For example, this may be possible in the following scenarios: Records show that an employee’s work performance has fallen below the employer’s required standards, and the employee has not tried to improve his or her work performance for three consecutive years. In addition, it does not appear that the employer was biased when giving ratings or scores for the employee’s work performance. The job description of the employee includes coordination with employees in other departments, but the employee has not been able to do so. Therefore, the employee was reassigned to a new job function, but the employee still did not improve. This suggests that the employee has a lack of interpersonal skills and is not