It was further explained that: "The connection of a police officer or a prison guard to the special judicial framework of the Labor Court in matters that he may consider to be rooted in the employment relationship between him and his commanders is liable to undermine important foundations in the delicate and special organizational structure of the service."
In the Karhili case, it was held that the provisions of section 93A of the Police Ordinance explicitly state that a hearing of the dismissal of a police officer in the "regular" framework of the Labor Court is contrary to the nature and essence of service in the police, and therefore the purpose of the provisions of section 93A must be fulfilled even in cases where the Labor Court arose by way of "drag" and a situation in which "the matter will become a matter subject to the jurisdiction of the Labor Court by attaching it to another ground. which will serve as a cover-up, which will make the matter of dismissal an issue in question." (High Court of Justice 727/85 Karhili Netser v. National Labor Court et al., 41(2) 589 (1987), above and hereinafter: "the Karhili case").
It was further held in the Karhili case that section 76 of the Courts Law does not grant the Labor Court jurisdiction to hear cases in which the substantive and dominant issue is covered by section 93A of the Police Ordinance and it is what "gave rise to the litigation in its essence".
- In the Pozaylov case, the Supreme Court ruled that "it is sufficient for a claim to raise as a disputed question one of the issues listed in section 93A of the Police Ordinance, so that the entire claim will be outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the Labor Court" (Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 2569/19 Moshe Pozailov - State of Israel - Israel Police, [Nevo] given on December 3, 2019 and the references therein).
- In the Zelig case, the National Labor Court ruled that when a police officer's claim is submitted to the Labor Court, the Labor Court must examine its substantive authority to hear the claim in a two-stage manner. It was held as follows:
"From the combination of the provision of section 93A of the Police Ordinance, section 24 of the Labor Court Law and detail 37(1) of the Administrative Affairs Court Law, the wording of which was cited above, it emerges that the examination of the authority of the Labor Court to address a cause of action filed by a police officer must be conducted in a two-stage manner: