Nominated MP and former Knut secretary general Wilson Sossion's sacking was procedural, TSC has told court.
The commission says the MP's sacking was within the confines of law, principles of natural justice and public interest.
This was in response to a suit filed by Sossion at the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
TSC further urged the court to dismiss the application saying the Knut boss breached statutory and regulatory provisions when he accepted the ODM nomination.
ODM nominated Sossion to Parliament after the August 2017 general elections.
But Sossion's former employer holds that he failed to respond when called upon to explain himself on the matter.
The commission says the MP was obligated to tender his resignation or retire in compliance with the Teachers Code of Conduct and Ethics, 2015, upon being nominated.
"He was subjected to fair administrative process and was accorded full benefit of the rules of natural justice, before he was shown the door," Josephine Maundu, the director in charge of Human Resource Management states in court documents.
In a sacking letter written by TSC boss Nancy Macharia dated January 15, the commission said he should have officially resigned after he accepted his nomination as an MP.
"By holding two conflicting public offices, he was engaged in two positions of gainful employment from the same Government contrary to the Provisions of section 26 of the Leadership and Integrity Act (LIA)."
"Section 16 of the Code provides that a teacher shall maintain political neutrality at all times Political activity and shall not act in a manner that may compromise or be perceived to compromise his or her neutrality," Maundu said.
Sossion sued TSC arguing that his sacking was malicious, had improper motives, and was in bad faith.
His argument is that the power to sack a teacher is regulated in law and such decision is informed by the rules of justice and fairness.
"I was entitled to a one-month notice in writing," he says.
The commission denies the claim adding that Sossion was given time to respond to the same before any determination could be made, but he failed to do so within the stipulated time.
"He has not demonstrated any injury, loss or injustice he will suffer if the orders are not granted; In any event any alleged injury to be suffered by the petitioner may be adequately compensated by way of damages," Maundu said.