Labour Courts Are Not Bound by Labour Inspector Findings
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8792/2550
Many employers and employees assume that once a Labour Inspector has completed an investigation and issued an order, the Labour Court is bound by the findings made during that administrative process.
However, Supreme Court Judgment No. 8792/2550 confirms that this is not the case.
The Court held that Labour Courts are not restricted to considering only the facts and evidence presented before the Labour Inspector. Both employers and employees remain entitled to submit additional evidence and present new factual arguments during court proceedings.
A Practical Example
Our firm previously represented an employer in a case seeking to revoke a Labour Inspector’s order requiring the employer to pay statutory severance benefits to an individual who claimed to be an employee.
The employer consulted us only after the Labour Inspector had already issued the order.
Upon reviewing the facts, we discovered that the claimant was the second wife of the company’s owner and held the second-highest executive position within the organisation, reporting only to her husband. She was not subject to supervision or control by anyone within the company, was not required to comply with the company’s work rules, and could decide her own working hours, leave, and attendance without seeking approval from any superior.
In substance, she was not under the employer’s direction or control and therefore did not possess the legal status of an “employee” under Thai labour law.
However, the employer’s HR department had not raised this argument during the Labour Inspector’s investigation, largely because it was unaware of the relevant legal principles.
Initially, the Labour Court declined to consider this defence. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases reversed that position and allowed the employer to rely on the argument and supporting evidence. Ultimately, the employer prevailed and the claim was dismissed.
Key Legal Principle
Claims filed under Section 125 of the Labour Protection Act are, in essence, appeals against orders issued by Labour Inspectors.
However, once the matter reaches the Labour Court, the proceedings are governed by the Act on the Establishment of Labour Courts and Labour Procedure, which does not prohibit the Court from hearing additional evidence or considering new factual issues.
As a result:
- The Court is not confined to the investigation file compiled by the Labour Inspector.
- The Supreme Court recognised that Labour Inspector investigations do not follow the same stringent evidentiary procedures as judicial proceedings and may be subject to limitations or deficiencies.
- Parties are therefore entitled to introduce additional evidence and present further factual arguments before the Court.
Practical Implications
The admissibility and persuasive value of new evidence do not depend on whether such evidence was presented during the Labour Inspector’s investigation.
Rather, the Court will assess the weight and credibility of the evidence as part of its judicial fact-finding process.
Takeaway for Legal Practitioners
Do not assume that the Labour Inspector’s file defines the entire dispute.
A case challenging a Labour Inspector’s order may effectively become a fresh opportunity to present stronger legal arguments and more persuasive evidence before the Labour Court.
The outcome of the case will ultimately depend on the quality, credibility, and weight of the evidence presented in Court—not merely on what appeared in the Labour Inspector’s investigation record.
An adverse Labour Inspector’s order is not necessarily the end of the story. Once the dispute reaches the Labour Court, the case will be determined on the basis of the evidence presented before the Court, rather than solely on the findings made during the administrative investigation.