The fight of these words is not a miracle. On the contrary, if the State's argument in the present case is accepted, the practical difficulty that we pointed out in the Zelig case will be exacerbated. The reason for this is that in this case, accepting the state's argument leads to the prison guard being forced to initiate a proceeding in the Administrative Affairs Court, and if he wins his claim, he will initiate a proceeding in the Employment Committee for the purpose of translating the declaratory decision into monetary relief. If any of the parties decides to appeal the decision of the Employment Committee, the appeal will be heard before the Regional Labor Court. In other words, accepting the state's argument will lead to the fact that the way to hear this type of claim may require clarification in three different instances. If this practical difficulty had been necessitated from the perspective of the normative fabric (as was the case in the case of Zelig and Ben Sha'anan), there would have been no choice but to adopt it, but in this case the normative fabric – as we detailed above – leads to a different conclusion, which we adopt.
- Ultimately , the appeal is accepted, and the monetary claim will be returned to the Employment Committee, while the appellant's declaration – quoted in paragraph 2 above – that he will delete from his claim to the Employment Committee the remedy to cancel the procedure and that it will be deleted from it. The contents of our judgment do not express a position as to whether the Employment Committee is authorized to discuss the legality of the procedure by virtue of an indirect attack, and all the arguments of the parties in this regard are reserved for them. The respondent will bear the appellant's expenses in the sum of NIS 8,000 in respect of the two instances.
It was given today, April 12, 2021, in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.
| Ilan Itach,
Vice President, Presiding Judge |
Leah Gliksman, |