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​ 

January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Vientiane have contributed the Laos chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Laos chapter was prepared by associates Naiyane Xaechao and Sayphin Singsouvong. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Laos chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Phnom Penh have contributed the Cambodia chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Cambodia chapter was authored by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Chanvisal Lok, associate. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
December 19, 2025
On December 12, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Labor published a ministerial regulation prescribing the minimum and maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions. The regulation, which takes effect on January 1, 2026, sets a flat minimum base wage of THB 1,650 per month and a phased increase of the maximum base wage over the following six years, as outlined in the table below. Impact on Social Security Benefits Not only will monthly contributions increase as a result of the adjustment to the maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions, but the maximum benefits available to insured persons will also be enhanced, as shown in the next table. Employer Obligations From January 1, 2026, employers must correctly withhold wages and remit social security contributions for both the employer’s and employees’ portions in compliance with the revised thresholds. Failure to comply may expose employers to penalties under the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990). Employers should ensure that payroll systems are updated as necessary to reflect these changes to the wage ceiling used for social security contribution calculations.