JUDGMENT On the first question of locus standi of the union raised by the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman in reply placed reliance on the provisions of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and a Division Bench decision reported in Management of Katkona Colliery of Western Coalfides Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur and others (1978 MPU 722). The submission on behalf of the workman is that the provisions of section 2A provide that an industrial disputes of discharge, dismissal or retrenchment of workman is an industrial dispute under the Act, may be that it is not espoused by any competent trade union. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the first objection raised or behalf of the petitioner questioning locus standi of the union to represent the workman, we are of the opinion that the objection raised is purely of a technical nature and does not substantially affect the merits of the case. The workman was examined in the Labour Court and in his deposition stated that although he took help of the union, he himself participated in the conciliation proceedings and made an attempt for reference of the industrial dispute under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workmen appeared before the Labour Court in the witness-box to support the claim filed on his behalf by the Union. In our opinion, therefore, such an 'Individual dispute' termination of workman, being by fiction an 'industrial dispute' under section 2 of the industrial Disputes Act, could be entertained and decided by the Labour Court under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act and participation of the union along with the workman in a proceeding before the Labour Court does not in any manner vitiate the award in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner then raised a legal objection that the petitioner-employer, which is only Chamber of Commerce, is not an 'industry' and no reference, therefore, could be made to the Labour Court. The point raised is squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the Management of Federation of Chamber of Commerce v. Their Workman ( AIR 1972 SC 763 ). The Supreme Court has considered the activities of the Chamber of Commerce and held that it is an 'industry' within, the meaning of section 2 U) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court has considered the activities of the Chamber of Commerce and held that it is an 'industry' within, the meaning of section 2 U) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Lastly an attempt was made to challenge the award on the ground that the services of the respondent-workman were dispensed with, because of his continuous ill-health and such a termination is not 'retrenchment' within the meaning of section 2 (00) of the I.D. Act. The plea of the workman being in continuous ill-health, was not raised by the employer and no evidence was adduced in support thereof in the Labour Court. We, therefore, do not permit the petitioner to raise a new ground in this petition before us under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 1978 MPLJ 722 and AIR 1972 SC 763 relied on. Petition allowed.