These words clarify why the present case is not one of the cases in which it is appropriate to High Court of Justice will intervene in the decision of the Labor Law Court. Even assuming that this is a complex case in which several interpretations may be made, and even if it is said that this issue could have been resolved entirely on the basis of administrative law, the respondents (Official andNachmani) would have turned toHigh Court of Justice By attacking the decisions of the Minister of the Interior (or his agents) and the councils in which they worked on grounds of public law, this still does not justify the intervention of the High Court of Justice In the decision, that: "The very existence of alternative legal interpretations or of a variety of possible legal methods is inconsistent with the conclusion that a substantial legal error has occurred."
For our purposes, it is not possible to point to a material legal error, and therefore - even for this reason alone - there is no room for intervention. At the same time, in my opinion, the point of gravity is not found in the basic concepts regarding the scope of the intervention of the High Court of Justice In such a case, except in the principle that between the deputy head of a local authority and the authority there can be an employee-employer relationship, elected officials are also entitled to the application of the Wage Protection Law against them, and a claim on this issue should be clarified in the Labor Court. This assertion is well in line with the development of the Halakha and stems from the rationale underlying the rule Seroussi.
Conclusion
- We have not fully understood the state's motives in filing this petition, and we do not want to speculate on the issue. In any event, whatever its motives, from a substantive point of view, we found that the petition should be dismissed and that the courts of the Labor Law Court were of the opinion that they had jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The approach of the Labor Court (with both instances) is well consistent with the prevailing precedent and undoubtedly constitutes a possible and reasonable interpretation of the legal issue before us. The main demand of the petitioners is to ensure the payment of their wages, even if in order to achieve this goal they must attack the decisions of public bodies, which are also subject to the rules of public law. Double or triple normative application does not negate the authority of the Labor Court. The authority of High Court of Justice Discussing the issue of the subject of this case is an authority Parallel as opposed to exclusive authority. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Courts as opposed to the High Court of Justice, it was stated as follows: