The purpose of this study was to determine the comparison of the rights of workers who experienced layoffs due to retirement before and after the Labour Law as well as judges’s considerations in resolving disputes over layoffs due to retirement in Study of Decision No.275/Pdt.Sus.PHI/2021/PN.Mdn. as the implementasion of Labour Law. This type of research is normative-empirical, which examines the provisions of labor law regarding the rights of layoffs due to retirement and its implementation in Decision No. 275/Pdt.Sus.PHI/2021/PN.Mdn. The data used is secondary data, sourced from laws and regulations and the decisions of the IRC as well as theories or opinions of experts. Methods of collecting data through literature studies and case studies. The invitation research approach (statute approach) and the judicial case study approach. The data analysis was done qualitatively. The results of this research shows that the comparison of the rights of workers who were laid off due to retirement before and after the Labour Laws decreased in terms of severance pay from 2x the provisions of Article 156 paragraph (2) of the Labour Law to 1.75x of Article 40 paragraph (2) PP. 35 of 2021 and abolishing the employer's obligation to replace housing, treatment and care in Article 156 paragraph (4) letter c. Implementation of dispute resolution of layoffs due to retirement in Decision No. 275/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2021/PN.Mdn has complied with the applicable procedures, whether non-litigation settlement proceeds to litigation. The judge's consideration of enacting the Labour Law jo. PP No. 35 of 2021 to calculate workers' rights based on the principle of lex posterior derogat legi priori. The existing PKB BKS-PPS with PP FSP-PP-SPSI were not used as a legal basis by the Panel of Judges, because they no longer had legal force. The Panel of Judges included the rice supply money as a fixed allowance which is a component of workers' wages. Workers are not included in the pension insurance program even though the company is classified as a large business, so the Panel of Judges does not reduce severance pay in accordance with the provisions of Article 58 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of PP. 35 of 2021./ Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui perbandingan hak-hak pekerja yang mengalami PHK karena pensiun sebelum dan pasca UU Cipta Kerja . Tujuan kedua berupa pertimbangan hakim dalam penyelesaian perselisihan PHK karena pensiun pada Putusan No. 275/Pdt.Sus.PHI/2021/PN.Mdn. sebagai implementasi UU Cipta Kerja. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif-empiris yang mengkaji ketentuan hukum ketenagakerjaan tentang hak-hak PHK karena pensiun dan implementasinya dalam Putusan Nomor 275/Pdt.Sus.PHI/2021/PN.Mdn. Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder, bersumber dari peraturan perundang-undangan dan Putusan PHI serta teori atau pendapat para ahli. Metode pengumpulan data melalui studi kepustakaan dan studi kasus. Pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan judicial case study digunakan sebagai pendekatan penelitian. Analisis data dilakukan secara kualitatif.:” Hasil penelitian bahwa perbandingan hak pekerja yang di PHK akibat pensiun sebelum dan sesudah UU Cipta Kerja mengalami penurunan dalam hal uang pesangon dari 2x ketentuan Pasal 156 ayat (2) UU Ketenagakerjaan menjadi 1,75x ketentuan Pasal 40 ayat (2) PP No. 35 Tahun 2021 dan menghapuskan kewajiban pengusaha atas penggantian perumahan, pengobatan dan perawatan dalam Pasal 156 ayat (4) huruf c. Implementasi penyelesaian perselisihan PHK karena pensiun pada Putusan No. 275/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2021/PN.Mdn telah sesuai dengan prosedur yang berlaku baik penyelesaian non litigasi dilanjutkan ke litigasi. Pertimbangan hakim memberlakukan UU Cipta Kerja juncto PP No. 35 Tahun 2021 untuk menghitung hak-hak pekerja yang didasarkan pada asas lex posterior derogat legi priori. PKB BKS-PPS dengan PP FSP- PP-SPSI yang telah ada tidak digunakan sebagai dasar hukum oleh Majelis Hakim, sebab sudah tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum berlaku. Majelis Hakim memasukkan uang catu beras sebagai tunjangan tetap yang menjadi komponen upah pekerja. Pekerja tidak diikutsertakan dalam program jaminan pensiun meskipun perusahaan tergolong dalam kriteria usaha besar, sehingga Majelis Hakim tidak mengurangi uang pesangon sesuai ketentuan Pasal 58 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) PP No. 35 Tahun 2021.