According to Laodong Daily on 28/1, Chu sued the company for compensation after his termination. He argued that without criminal prosecution, his employment contract could not be legally terminated.

Court records show that Chu signed an employment contract with a Beijing-based company from 1/10/2023 to 30/9/2026, serving as an operations manager. The company's "Employee Management and Reward Regulations" stipulate that administrative penalties, administrative detention, or labor reform imposed by public security authorities constitute serious misconduct, allowing the company to terminate an employment contract without compensation.

In February 2025, at the company's warehouse, Chu lost self-control and forcibly kissed a female colleague, Ms. Vuong. She immediately called the police and reported the incident to the company. Police determined that Chu's actions constituted sexual harassment.

On 12/5/2025, the company held a private meeting with Chu, where he confirmed his five-day administrative detention for sexual harassment and expressed willingness to accept the company's disciplinary measures. Following this meeting, the company issued Chu a "Notice of Employment Termination", effective from 15/5/2025.

Claiming unlawful termination, Chu filed a lawsuit seeking over 168,000 yuan (nearly 630 million dong) in compensation.

The first instance court found sufficient evidence that public security authorities had administratively detained Chu for illegal acts. The court ruled that the company's termination of Chu's employment contract, based on its "Employee Management and Reward Regulations" and relevant laws, was lawful.

Consequently, the first instance court rejected Chu's compensation claim.

Chu appealed, arguing that according to Article 39, Clause (6) of the Labor Contract Law, an employer can only terminate an employment contract if the employee is criminally prosecuted. He contended that the scope of "criminal prosecution" does not include criminal or administrative detention.

Chu asserted that even if the company's employment contract included disciplinary terms, those terms should be deemed invalid for violating the Labor Contract Law. Therefore, he argued, the company's termination of his employment contract based on internal company rules or contract terms constituted unlawful termination.

The appellate court determined that criminal prosecution is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one, for an employer to terminate an employment contract.

The court noted that the company's internal regulations, which permit termination without compensation if an employee receives an administrative penalty from public security authorities, are reasonable and lawful. The company implemented this clause through a democratic process and disclosed it to employees.

Therefore, the company's termination of Chu's employment contract based on this clause was not unlawful. The appellate court dismissed Chu's appeal for compensation, upholding the first instance ruling.

Tu Anh (Source: Laodong Daily, Dahe News)