<![CDATA[A Fixed-Term Employment Agreement (Perjanjian Kerja Waktu Tertentu/PKWT) is a temporary employment instrument bound by a specific period. In industrial relations practice, early termination of PKWT raises complex legal issues, particularly regarding employers' obligation to pay compensation. Article 17 of Government Regulation No. 35 of 2021 mandates employers to pay proportional compensation when either party terminates the employment before the agreed PKWT term expires. However, this norm contains normative ambiguity (vage normen) as it does not explicitly regulate the reasons or conditions underlying such termination, resulting in multiple interpretations in practice. This ambiguity is reflected in inconsistent regional practices: West Java generally does not require compensation when workers resign, Batam mandates compensation regardless of the terminating party, and Bali faces dilemmas when termination involves criminal acts by workers. Additionally, a normative inconsistency exists between Article 17 PP No. 35/2021 and Article 61A paragraph (1) of Law No. 6/2023 on Job Creation, which restricts compensation obligations to only two conditions: expiration of the agreed contract period and completion of specific work. The relationship between compensation and indemnity obligations under Article 62 of Law No. 13/2003 also remains unclear. Using normative legal research with statutory and conceptual approaches, this study concludes that compensation is a normative right attached to the work period performed, not to full contract completion. Employers who terminate PKWT early bear cumulative obligations to pay both compensation and indemnity, as these instruments serve different legal purposes. Workers who terminate early remain entitled to proportional compensation despite owing indemnity to employers. Normative clarification of Article 17 PP No. 35/2021 is urgently required to ensure legal certainty, justice, and adequate protection for all parties in employment relationships.]]>
