AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) PURSUANT to the direction of the High Court under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the assessment year 1980-81 :"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that technical know-how fees of Rs. 33,33,333 paid to S. R. G. Kugeller Works Schemid Roost, A. G. Switzerland was revenue expenditure ? ( 2 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the ex gratia payment of Rs. 13,99,650 to the workers and employees in excess of the statutory limit of 20 per cent. of salary in terms of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, was allowable as deduction ? ( 3 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,01,000 being contribution made by the assessee to the National Engineering Industries Centre and National Engineering Industries Officers and Executive Welfare Scheme was allowable under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? ( 4 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the medical reimbursement made by the employers was not includible in the calculation of the disallowance under Section 40a (5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as perquisite ?"2. The first question is relating to the admissibility of the technical know-how fees under the collaboration agreement as the revenue expenditure. An identical question has been decided by this court in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own case in CIT v. National Engineering Industries Ltd. [1991] 190 ITR 525. Following the said decision, we answer the first question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 3. The second question relates to the ex gratia payment to the workers and employees in excess of the statutory limit prescribed by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. It is not in dispute that this question is concluded by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. [1991] 190 ITR 455. 4. Following the said decision, we answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. It is not in dispute that this question is concluded by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. [1991] 190 ITR 455. 4. Following the said decision, we answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. ( 5 ) THE facts relating to question No. 3 are as under : The Income-tax Officer by following his order for the assessment year 1976-77 disallowed two contributions made by the assessee, i. e. , Rs. 1 lakh to NEI Centre and further contribution of Rs. 1,01,000 to NEI Officers and Executives Welfare Scheme aggregating to Rs. 2,01,000. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by following his order for the assessment year 1976-77 deleted the addition. On further appeal, the Tribunal maintained the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by following its order for the assessment year 1976-77 in ITA No. 1030 (Cal) of 1981 and C. O. No. 81 (Cal) of 1981 and ITA No. 623 (Cal) of 1981. It has held that both the contributions made to the NEI Centre which was registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, for the welfare and benefit of the employees as also the contribution made to NEI Officers and Executive Welfare Scheme were deductible under Section 37 of the Act. ( 6 ) THIS payment is by way of contribution to the welfare schemes of the employees of the assessee. The payment has to be made as the assessee's conduct of business has a nexus to the object of the employees' welfare schemes. The expenditure is justified having regard to the business expediency. The refusal to pay such expenditure would have spread dis-affection amongst the workers and employees and would have adversely affected the assessee's business. The expenditure incurred merely for the purpose of keeping the workers happy and maintaining industrial peace and cordial relations with the employees is by now an accepted expenditure of the carrying on of a business. Without such good relations it is not possible to run any business. Therefore, the expenditure is rightly allowable as revenue expenditure. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. ( 7 ) THE fourth question relates to the cash allowance paid by way of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the assessee. Therefore, the expenditure is rightly allowable as revenue expenditure. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. ( 7 ) THE fourth question relates to the cash allowance paid by way of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the assessee. Such medical reimbursement does not come within the ambit of the expression "perquisite" as defined in Explanation 2 (b) of Section 40a (5 ). This view has been taken by a number of decisions of this court, e. g. , Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 827. Following the said decision, we answer the fourth question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.