The Respondent reiterated that the background to the claim is the dismissal, but that it is a financial claim in view of the Applicant's prolonged harassment. The Respondent further argued that the Applicant did not claim a lack of substantive authority in the proceeding that took place in the Respondent's application for an injunction, and as evidence, the rejection of the order did not stem from a lack of substantive authority.
Discussion and Decision
The Normative Framework
- Regulations 44 and 45 of the Labor Court Regulations (Procedures) 5752-1991 (hereinafter: the "Regulations") allow the Labor Court to order the dismissal or dismissal of the claim in limine, for the following reasons:
"44. Deletion of a statement of claims in limine
The tribunal may, at any time, at the request of a party or even without such a request, delete out of hand a statement of claims on one of the following grounds:
(1) The writing does not show a cause;
(2) From the statement of claims, it appears to be disturbing or annoying;
(3) The litigant is required, by virtue of section 18(d) of the Law, to take action in connection with a statement of claims that he submitted, and did not perform it on time.
- Rejection out of hand
(a) The tribunal may at any time, at the request of a party or even without such a request, dismiss out of hand an action against a defendant for one of the following reasons:
(1) The act of the court;
(2) lack of authority;
- (3) Any other reason according to which the court believes that the claim with respect to that defendant can be dismissed in the first place..."
The rule is that "Deleting a claim or dismissing it in limine is a measure taken without a choice, and resolving the dispute, on its merits, is always preferable." (Civil Appeal 693/83 Shemesh v. Land Registrar, IsrSC 40(2) 668, 671 (1986)), all the more so in the labor courts; As determined - "The remedy of dismissal in limine is exercised by the court with a clenched hand and sparingly, and in the courts it is even shorter than that." (National Labor Court Hearing (National) 51/3-195 Software Translation Machines in Tax Appeal - Amichai Segal, PDA 23 275, 277 [Nevo] (1991)). - In our case, the Applicant petitioned to dismiss the claim in limine due to the lack of substantive jurisdiction of the Court, due to the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Court for Administrative Affairs in accordance with Section 93A of the Police Ordinance.
- The authority of the Labor Court is regulated in Section 24 of the Labor Courts Law. Section 24(a)(1) of the Law states that a regional court will have unique jurisdiction to adjudicate -
"In claims between an employee or his substitute and the employer or his substitute arising out of an employee-employer relationship, including the question regarding the very existence of an employee-employer relationship, and with the exception of an action that arose inthe Torts Ordinance"
- The jurisdiction of the Court for Administrative Affairs is regulated in Section 5 of the Courts for Administrative Matters Law, 5760-2000, which states as follows:
"A court for administrative matters shall hear the following: