After receiving the recommendations of the relevant parties and in light of the fact that the period of engagement with you is currently ending, I have decided that there is no reason to extend your service in the Corps, according to my authority set forth in Section 17 of the Police Ordinance...
Your services will end 90 days after the date of receipt of this letter, upon the expiration of the days of prior notice."
- On September 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, due to his personal and family situation, but his appeal was rejected. On November 30, 2020, the plaintiff terminated his service.
- On April 12, 2021, an indictment was filed against the plaintiff in the Petah Tikva Traffic Court for driving under the influence of alcohol, in which the plaintiff was convicted.
- About five years later, on May 11, 2025, the plaintiff filed this claim. According to the plaintiff, the decision to terminate his employment was made unlawfully, discriminating against him and in contravention of proper management. Therefore, the plaintiff petitioned for his reinstatement to service and alternatively for compensation for the damages caused to him as a result of his unlawful dismissal, which he claimed, including "redemption of pension funds, non-payment of compensation and denial of allowances". The plaintiff also claimed that a firearms license was not granted.
- After receiving an extension, on July 9, 2025, the defendant filed its motion for summary dismissal; on August 17, 2025, the plaintiff filed his response to it (hereinafter, respectively, "the motion", the "response").
The main arguments of the parties
- The defendant claims that although the claim is for the issuance of an order for reinstatement to work as well as a monetary claim for unlawful dismissal, which was not quantified, the plaintiff's claims are based on professional and substantive decisions of the defendant regarding the plaintiff's dismissal. The examination of the plaintiff's claims will require "an administrative examination of the proper exercise of the organizational authority and the management of the defendant's manpower", which falls within the scope of section 93A of the Police Ordinance. Therefore, according to the defendant, the plaintiff's claim is not within the jurisdiction of the Labor Court, but rather within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Affairs Court, without prejudice to its claims regarding delay, statute of limitations, etc. In addition, the defendant claims that the plaintiff did not quantify the financial remedies claimed by him, and for this reason as well, the claim should be dismissed.
- In his response, the plaintiff argues that his causes of action stem from the employment relationship between the parties, about which there is no dispute. The plaintiff claims that the reinstatement remedy is not the main remedy, especially since five years have passed since his dismissal. The plaintiff claims that the main part of his claim is to receive monetary compensation for his dismissal, which was done while discriminating against him, in contravention of proper procedure and administration, while denying compensation/allowances and causing financial damages, such as non-renewal of a license to carry weapons, which are within the jurisdiction of the court. Alternatively, the plaintiff argued that the amendment of the statement of claim should be allowed, since the reinstatement remedy is not relevant after five years.
Discussion and Decision
- After examining the arguments of the parties in the application and reviewing all the material in the Tribunal's file, we have come to the conclusion that the application should be granted, and that the claim should be dismissed in limine in the absence of authority. Let us elaborate.
- Regulations 44-45 of the Labor Court Regulations (Procedures), Road Accidents without Bodily Injuries - 1991 deal with the dismissal of claims in limine. According to case law, a relief of summary disposal is an extreme relief that will be granted sparingly and in exceptional cases, and that, as a rule, the court will prefer to clarify the claim on its merits rather than dismissal it in limine, in order not to deprive a party of his legal right to exercise his legal right (Application for Leave to Appeal 1317/01 Traffic and Surveys Publication in Tax Appeal et al. Yaakov Agam, [Nevo], unpublished and the references therein). Since-
"Where there is a possibility, even a slim one, that the plaintiff will receive the relief he demanded, the court's gates are not closed before him..." (See High Court of Justice 254/73 Tzeri Pharmaceutical and Chemical Company in Tax Appeal et al. v. National Labor Court et al., IsrSC 28(1) 372).