The Muslim teaching assistant who sparked a political furore after refusing to remove her veil in the classroom - and whose case was dragged into a national debate on the wearing of religious symbols - has been sacked.

Aishah Azmi, 24, of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire was suspended on full pay earlier this year by Kirklees Council.

Last month, an employment tribunal dismissed her three claims of discrimination and harassment on religious grounds but agreed that she had been victimised by Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury, and awarded her £1,000 for injury to her feelings.

At the time she said she would appeal against the decision, criticising ministers who had intervened in the case and said it made her feel "fearful of the consequences for Muslim women in the country who want to work".

But today, a Kirklees Council spokesman confirmed she had been sacked after an internal disciplinary hearing into "the circumstances that resulted in the suspension of a bilingual support worker at the school".

"As a result of the hearing the committee decided to terminate the employment of the employee concerned," he said.

Nick Whittingham, Mrs Azmi’s lawyer, of the Kirkless Law Centre, said the local education authority was involved in a disciplinary process against his client but he was not aware that any decision had been reached.

The central plank of Mrs Azmi's argument was that she was willing to remove her veil in front of children - but not when male colleagues were present.

Her dispute was brought as a test case under the new religious discrimination regulations, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2004.

The sacking will fuel the debate over the wearing of religious symbols in the workplace. Nadia Eweida, 55, a Catholic, has been banned from wearing the Christian cross by her employer British Airways. She has refused to return to work since her employers told her last month that she could not wear her cross necklace to work.

British Airways said it offered her a non-uniformed job where she could wear a cross, but Miss Eweida turned it down. The airline continued to insist that if she wanted to work in the check-in area at Heathrow, she could not wear a visible cross, adding that it had no ban on religious jewellery, but it must be hidden from view.

Miss Eweida's case, now at the second internal appeal stage, has seen her supported by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu.

Last night, Jack Straw, the leader of the House of Commons, also weighed in, saying that British Airways' dress code was ‘inexplicable’ and demanding fair and equal treatment for all religions.

Mr Straw was the politician who prompted a debate on the wearing of the veil when he disclosed in a column in his local newspaper, The Lancashire Telegraph, that he asked his female constituents to remove their veils when

Tony Blair then went on to say that the veil was a "mark of separation" which makes people of other ethnic backgrounds feel uncomfortable.

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, accused Muslim leaders of risking "voluntary apartheid" in Britain and Phil Woolas, the Government's race minister, demanded that Mrs Azmi be sacked, saying she was "denying the right of children to a full education."

Last month, Shahid Malik, the Labour MP who represents Mrs Azmi’s home town of Dewsbury, said that the tribunal ruling was "quite clearly a victory for common sense" and urged her to drop her appeal against the tribunal’s decision.

Commenting on today's decision, Mr Malik said that the case was not about religion but about the education of the children at the school.

"I’m obviously disappointed that a compromise could not be reached," he said. "But while I would absolutely defend her right to wear the veil in society, it’s very clear that her wearing the veil in the classroom setting inhibits her ability to support children.

"And what must come first are the interests, well-being and education of our children."

Times Recommends

• Future Stars of the Bar 2008
• Lawyer of the Week: Julie Morris
• Charging suspects - why it's a job for prosecutors