Pouvez-vous renoncer à vos indemnités de départ en Thaïlande ? Décision de la Cour suprême 1162/2569 sur les accords de sortie

Révisé par ThaiLawOnline, un cabinet d'avocats thaïlandais agréé exerçant en Thaïlande depuis 2006. Avocate thaïlandaise en charge du dossier : Wichuda Atthamethakon, LL.M., licence du barreau thaïlandais 3149/2556.

Dernière mise à jour le 5 septembre 2026

Quick answer. A severance pay waiver in Thailand is void if it is agreed while you are still employed, and it can be fully binding if it is signed after the employment has ended. That is the line the Supreme Court drew in Decision No. 1162/2569 (2026): severance pay and annual leave pay under the Labour Protection Act are protections of public order that an employer and an employee cannot contract out of in advance, but once the employment relationship is over they are ordinary debts, and a receipt-and-release signed freely by an informed former employee is a valid compromise that extinguishes them. This page explains the rule, the case, and what it means before you sign or draft an exit document.

La règle avant et après la résiliation

Most guides to Thai employment law, including our own guide to Thai labour law, tell you that statutory severance cannot be waived. That statement is correct as far as it goes, but it hides a distinction that decides real cases. The question is not whether severance can ever be given up. The question is when the waiver was agreed.

When the waiver is signed	Legal effect	Base
Before or during employment (in the contract, in work rules, in a side letter)	Void. The employee keeps the full statutory entitlement and can still claim it.	Labour Protection Act as a law of public order; Civil and Commercial Code section 150
After the employment has ended (a receipt and release, a settlement, a retirement package)	Valid if it is a genuine compromise signed with knowledge and free consent. The claims waived are extinguished.	Civil and Commercial Code sections 850 and 852; Supreme Court Decision No. 1162/2569

The reasoning is simple once stated. While you are employed, the law protects you from your own employer’s bargaining power: an employer who could make severance a condition of the job would make it disappear from every contract. Once the employment is over, that power is gone. You are two parties with a money dispute, and Thai law lets two parties settle a money dispute by mutual concessions. The settlement is called a compromise, and its effect is to extinguish the claims each side gave up.

Ce que la Loi sur la protection du travail vous offre

Two entitlements were at stake in the case, and both come from the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended.

• Severance pay (section 118). An employer that terminates an employee with at least 120 days of service, other than for a serious cause listed in section 119, must pay severance at the employee’s last wage rate: 30 days for 120 days to under one year of service, 90 days for one to under three years, 180 days for three to under six years, 240 days for six to under ten years, 300 days for ten to under twenty years, and 400 days for twenty years or more. Retirement, whether at an age agreed with the employer or set by the employer, is deemed a termination under section 118/1 (added by the Labour Protection Act (No. 6) B.E. 2560), which is why a retiring executive can be owed more than a year of pay.
• Annual leave pay on termination (section 67). Where the employer terminates other than for a section 119 cause, it must pay wages for the annual holidays of the year of termination in proportion to the entitlement under section 30.

The full severance table, notice rules and the section 119 causes are on our Thai labour law page, and employers will find the termination process explained in our employment law guide for employers.

Pourquoi une renonciation anticipée est nulle

The Labour Protection Act is treated by the Thai courts as a law concerning public order (กฎหมายอันเกี่ยวกับความสงบเรียบร้อยของประชาชน). Under section 150 of the Civil and Commercial Code, an act whose object is contrary to public order or good morals is void. In Decision No. 1162/2569 the Supreme Court restated the consequence in one sentence: an employer and an employee cannot agree in advance to exclude the employee from the protection of the Act, and if they do, the agreement is void under section 150.

In practice this catches clauses such as “the employee agrees that no severance shall be payable on termination”, “the signing bonus is paid in lieu of any statutory severance”, or a retirement scheme that describes its payout as “in full satisfaction of all claims” while the employee is still working. None of those wordings survive. An employee who signed them can still sue for the statutory amount, and the Labour Court will award it.

Décision de la Cour suprême n° 1162/2569 : les faits

The plaintiff had worked for the defendant company and its affiliates for more than twenty years and had risen to president, the highest position in the company, with a final salary of USD 12,856 a month. He retired on 31 August 2020 (B.E. 2563). On his last day he signed two receipt documents. The first acknowledged USD 75,574, after tax, for his work in Indonesia for an affiliate of the group up to 31 December 2016, and stated that he would not claim any further money from that company for that work. The second acknowledged 1,274,488 baht, after tax, for his work in Thailand up to 31 August 2020 on his retirement, and stated that he had received full and final payment and would claim nothing further from the employer.

He then sued in the Labour Court for, among other things, severance pay of 6,205,548 baht and accumulated annual leave pay of 1,087,711.40 baht, together with bonus, special compensation and damages. The Labour Court Region 1 dismissed the claim. Both sides appealed, and the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases (Labour Division) amended the judgment on the two statutory items, ordering the employer to pay 6,170,832 baht in severance and 1,087,711.40 baht in annual leave pay, with interest at 15 per cent a year. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court with leave.

Ce que la Cour suprême a décidé

The Supreme Court (Labour Division) amended the judgment and dismissed the claims for severance pay and annual leave pay. Its reasoning runs in three steps.

1. The entitlements are public order protections. Severance pay and annual leave pay are amounts fixed by the Labour Protection Act, a law of public order. An advance agreement excluding the employee from that protection is void under Civil and Commercial Code section 150.
2. But the employment had ended. The employer terminated the plaintiff by reason of his retirement on 31 August 2020, and the employer and employee relationship under the contract of employment ended that day. What the plaintiff signed afterwards was an agreement to settle an existing dispute by mutual concessions, which is a compromise within the meaning of section 850 of the Civil and Commercial Code.
3. The compromise binds him. The plaintiff knew the amounts he was entitled to on retirement, agreed to accept the money, and declared that he would make no further claim relating to his employment. The compromise therefore took effect between the parties, and under section 852 the claims he had given up were extinguished. He could no longer claim severance pay or annual leave pay.

The holding, in substance: an employer and employee cannot agree in advance to exclude the employee from protection under the Labour Protection Act, and such an agreement is void under section 150; but once the employment relationship has ended, an agreement by which the former employee accepts payment and declares that he will not claim any further money is a compromise under section 850, and where, as here, the employee knew the amounts due and was free to decide, the waived claims are extinguished under section 852. The Court cited only the three Civil and Commercial Code sections; the Labour Protection Act section numbers on this page are ours.

Les facteurs pris en compte par la Cour

The decision is not a licence for every release form. The Court took care to record why this particular signature counted as free and informed consent, and each factor is a warning sign in reverse for a weaker case.

• Timing. The documents were signed on the retirement date, when the employment had already ended. In our view a document signed a week before the last day, while the employment continues, is an advance waiver.
• Position. The plaintiff was the president of the company, its most senior position. The Court found that he could decide independently and was no longer in a position where he had to fear his employer.
• Knowledge. He knew the amounts he was entitled to on retirement when he signed, and he received substantial sums under the two documents.
• Expressed intention. The documents stated in terms that he had been paid in full and would claim nothing further. That wording is what turned a receipt into a compromise.
• Mutual concessions. A compromise under section 850 requires both sides to give something up. The Court characterised the arrangement as each party yielding to the other, which is why it qualified.

In our reading, a Labour Court would look harder at a release signed by a junior employee who was handed a form at the exit interview, was not told what the statutory figure was, and received nothing beyond what the law already required. The two lower courts in this very case reached opposite conclusions on the same documents, which shows how fact sensitive the question is. Anyone relying on a release, on either side, should assume it will be tested against these factors.

Si vous êtes le salarié : avant de signer un reçu pour solde de tout compte

Foreign executives in Thailand are the group most exposed to this decision. Exit packages for senior expatriates are often negotiated quickly, in English, on the last day, and the documents are drafted by the employer. After Decision No. 1162/2569 a signed release is very hard to undo. Before you sign:

• Work out your statutory entitlement first: severance under section 118 at your last wage rate, wages in lieu of notice under section 17 if notice was not given, and annual leave pay under section 67. Compare it with the offer. If the offer is lower and you sign a release, you have given the difference away.
• Read every receipt. A document headed “receipt” that says you have been paid “in full and final settlement” and “will not claim any further amount” is the compromise wording the Court relied on. It is not a formality.
• Do not sign anything before your last day of employment that purports to waive statutory amounts. Such a document is void, but relying on that in court is slower and more expensive than declining to sign.
• If you want to keep a claim open, say so in writing on the document before signing, or sign a receipt that acknowledges the sum received without releasing other claims.
• Have the document reviewed before signature, not after. A review of an exit package is a short piece of work compared with a Labour Court action to recover severance you have already released.

Si vous êtes l'employeur : rédiger un reçu pour solde de tout compte exécutoire

For employers, the decision confirms that a negotiated exit can be closed with finality, provided the release is built on the facts the Supreme Court found persuasive rather than on wording alone.

• Sign after termination, not before. Date the release on or after the day the employment ends. A release attached to the employment contract, the work rules or an early retirement scheme is an advance waiver and void.
• Itemise the entitlements. Set out the severance calculation, notice pay and leave pay so the employee demonstrably knew the statutory figure. Knowledge of the amount due was central to the Court’s reasoning.
• Give a real concession. A compromise under section 850 requires mutual concessions. Paying exactly what the law requires and asking for a release in return is weak; an additional payment, an extended benefit or a waiver of the employer’s own claims gives the release its consideration.
• Record free consent. Allow time to consider the document, offer a Thai and English version where the employee is foreign, and avoid signing under conditions the employee could later describe as pressure.
• Use compromise language. State that the employee accepts the sums in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the employment and will make no further claim. A bare receipt without a release does not extinguish anything.

Notre modèles de contrats de travail and the Employment Pack with its termination letter cover the earlier stages of the relationship. A release should be drafted for the specific exit.

Foire aux questions

Sources et vérification

Supreme Court Decision No. 1162/2569, Labour Division, black case no. ร.223/2567, was read in full in the text issued by the Office of Judicial Assistants of the Supreme Court (กองผู้ช่วยผู้พิพากษาศาลฎีกา) as reproduced at deka.in.th; the Supreme Court’s own search database was not reachable on the day this page was written, and the citation will be re-checked against it. The facts, figures and holding above are taken from that text. Sections 150, 850 and 852 of the Civil and Commercial Code are quoted from the Thai text in our own annotated Civil and Commercial Code. Sections 17, 30, 67, 118, 118/1 and 119 of the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 were read in the Thai consolidated text, including the 400 day tier added by the Labour Protection Act (No. 7) B.E. 2562. The practical guidance for employees and employers is our own commentary and is marked as such.

Comment ThaiLawOnline peut vous aider

ThaiLawOnline has advised foreign employees and employers in Thailand since 2006, entirely by email, phone, video and LINE. We review exit packages and releases before signature, calculate the statutory severance, notice and leave pay you are owed or must pay, and draft compromise agreements that will hold. A consultation is 2,000 THB per hour; see our frais juridiques ou réserver une consultation. If you have been handed a release to sign, send it to us before you sign it, not after.

Page written 5 September 2026. It describes the law as read on that date; the practical sections are commentary and not a substitute for advice on your own documents.