Valid service requires prior tender or registered post before affixation; limitation did not begin on defective service.

Service of an order by affixation was invalid where the statutory scheme required first attempting tender or registered post and permitted affixation only on failure of those primary modes. Because no such prior attempt was made, the affixation did not amount to valid service under the Act. As valid service had not been effected, the limitation period for filing the appeals could not be treated as having commenced, and the appeals could not be dismissed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the order by affixation, without first attempting service by tender or registered post, was valid under the Act so as to start limitation for filing the appeals.

Analysis: Section 22 prescribed a inal order for service. Service by affixation under clause (b) was permissible only when service could not be effected in the manner provided in clause (a), namely by tendering the notice or order or sending it by registered post. On the admitted facts, no attempt was made to serve the order by either of the primary modes before resorting to affixation within a few days of the order. Such affixation therefore did not satisfy the statutory requirement of service. As valid service had not been effected, the limitation period under Section 12(4) could not be treated as having commenced.

Conclusion: Service by affixation, without prior compliance with the primary modes of service, was not valid and the appeals could not have been dismissed as time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes service first by tender or registered post and permits affixation only on failure of those modes, affixation without attempting the primary modes does not constitute valid service for computing limitation.

---