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​ 

October 25, 2021
Michael Ramirez, a counsel in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution group in Bangkok, has updated the firm’s contribution to the Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide, published by Lex Mundi. The newly expanded guide provides information on what constitutes attorney-client privilege in over 70 countries around the world. The Thailand section of the guide contains in-depth information on the function and applications of attorney-client privilege in Thailand (or, as explained in the guide, an equivalent concept enshrined in Thai law), including coverage of the following topics: Privilege in corporations Common interest doctrine Litigation funding Crime-fraud exception Work product doctrine/litigation privilege Other privileges including mediation, accountant-client and settlement negotiation The interactive guide features expert contributions by Lex Mundi member firms from jurisdictions worldwide. Readers can browse the contributions, generate country-specific reports, and compare attorney-client privilege in multiple jurisdictions. For more information, please visit the Lex Mundi website.
October 14, 2021
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has published an updated edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand for 2021. This guide outlines all of the key factors for starting and operating a business in the Thai market. Issues covered include: Investment incentives Financial facilities Exchange controls Import and export regulations Structures for doing business Requirements for the Establishment of a Business Operation of the Business Cessation or Termination of the Business Labor legislation, relations, and supply Tax Immigration requirements This publication is part of Lex Mundi’s Guides to Doing Business series prepared by member firms in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide. The guides serve as a useful resource when planning an international business strategy or researching a new market.
September 13, 2021
Businesses in Vietnam recognize the need to vaccinate their workers in order to keep their factories and workplaces open. In this article, we explore whether employers may require their employees to be vaccinated, as well as associated disclosure and privacy issues under Vietnamese law.
September 13, 2021
With COVID-19 cases continuing to pose a significant threat throughout Thailand, many employers have ordered their employees to work exclusively from home in order to minimize their chances of contracting the virus. However, this luxury is not afforded to all employees—some are unable to work from home due to the nature of their work, and consequently they are placed in the precarious position of being exposed to possible infection. Thailand’s Social Security Office (SSO) understood these risks early in the pandemic and, in March 2020, issued guidelines through the Workmen’s Compensation Fund Office on employees’ entitlement to claim benefits from the workers’ compensation fund (WCF) if they contract the virus as a result of their work. The WCF provides medical-related assistance and compensation to employees who directly suffer from a work-related injury or sickness (subject to certain conditions). Falling ill with COVID-19 during the performance of work duties may constitute suffering work-related sickness, thereby allowing employees to claim compensation from the WCF by submitting the Kor Thor 16 form, a medical certificate, treatment records, records of the employee’s working hours, and other relevant documentation. Upon receiving a claim, the SSO will investigate by collecting facts and evidence from the employer, the infected employee and his or her colleagues, and any witnesses. The official will examine the employee’s duties and working conditions in detail, taking into consideration any relevant information, such as evidence regarding the employee’s travel or movements prior to falling sick. Once all the facts and evidence are gathered, the matter will be submitted to a medical subcommittee responsible for determining whether the employee’s onset of COVID-19 is due to his or her work. If the subcommittee finds that the employee’s contraction of the virus did indeed result from the performance of his or her work duties, the