In the Yakubov case, the Supreme Court was aware that denying the possibility of hearing the monetary relief for compensation by virtue of the model of indirect assault may require splitting the claim in cases where the need arises to translate the decision of the administrative court into monetary relief. However, it was held that this result, despite the burden inherent in it, does not justify a deviation from the legislature's command embodied in section 93A of the Police Ordinance. Thus it is stated:
"In summary, an examination of the nature of the claim reveals that in practice it is a direct attack on the administrative act and not an indirect attack. As such, the hearing of this cannot take place in the Magistrate's Court as a matter in Guerra. The administrative issue relating to his recruitment to the police, his placement in the position, and ultimately his dismissal from service, is at the heart of the respondent's claim. She and only she give rise to the respondent's claim for monetary relief. Therefore, he must bring this issue, as the legislature commands, to the Court for Administrative Affairs. Indeed, it can be assumed that this result will cause inconvenience and higher costs in conducting the legal proceedings for the respondent. This is because this may require a split hearing in the lawsuit. However, it seems that from a practical perspective, exhausting the proceedings in the Court of Administrative Affairs will even lead to the termination of the financial aspects without the need for further discussion, since these in themselves can usually be quantified without the need for a separate legal clarification. In any case, the aforesaid consideration regarding the splitting of the hearing that may arise cannot override the clear intention of the legislature that these matters will be heard before an administrative court. If it is determined that there was an administrative defect in the conduct of the police, the respondent will be able to exhaust the translation of the judgment into its monetary value and even if necessary, turn to the appropriate court to clarify his entitlement to financial relief, which he claims arises from this."
- What emerges from the aforesaid is that the fact that the relief sought in the claim in matters contained in section 93A of the Ordinance is monetary does not affect the delimitation of the substantive jurisdiction of the Labor Court by virtue of section 24 of the Labor Court Law. The substantive jurisdiction of the Labor Court by virtue of Section 24(a)(1) of the Labor Court Law is not limited only by the remedy test, but rather in a complex and combined manner with the cause of action test (cause of action in the employment relationship) and the test of the identity of the parties. When the Chief Legislature has determined in section 93A of the Ordinance that an action in the matters listed therein will not be considered as a claim arising from an employee-employer relationship, and that the existence of a cause of action in an employment relationship is a condition for the substantive jurisdiction of the Labor Court by virtue of section 24(a)(1) of the Law, the direct authority of the Labor Court to hear the matter itself is denied by virtue of section 24(a)(1) of the Law.
In accordance with the case law, the purpose of section 93A, by virtue of which the direct authority of the Labor Court to hear matters listed in section 93A of the Police Ordinance is revoked, must also be respected when the court is considering whether to require a decision on a particular matter in a garra in connection with an action for monetary relief. In other words, the nature of the matter and the fact that it is subscribed to section 93 of the Police Ordinance tip the scales. Therefore, when a decision is required in the matter of the subscription in section 93A of the Police Ordinance, even if it involves financial relief, there is no reason for the Labor Court to require this within the framework of the discretion granted to it by virtue of section 76 of the Courts Law, together with section 39 of the Law.
- Thus far, with regard to the direct authority of the Labor Court or the discretion to hear the matter listed in section 93A of the Police Ordinance, when a claim is filed by virtue of section 24(a)(1) of the Labor Court Law.
- Sometimes, a special provision in the law grants unique authority to the Labor Court, with the focus of the appeal being the provision of section 14 of the Equality Law, which reads:
"The Labor Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear a civil proceeding due to a violation of the provisions of this chapter and may –